JUDGMENT :

DR. D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.

1. The Defendants are the Appellants assailing the judgment and decree dated 5.1.2015 and 8.1.2015, respectively passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jajpur in R.F.A. No.66 of 2013 allowing the appeal and reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.8.2013 and 23.8.2013, respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur in Civil Suit No.415 of 2011.

2. This Second Appeal is admitted on the following two substantial questions of law for consideration:

(1) Whether the lower appellate court is right in holding the suit to be not barred by limitation in view of provision of Article 60(a) of the Limitation Act?

(2) Whether the right of the plaintiff to challenge the alienation stood extinguished by virtue of provision of Section 27 of the Limitation Act?

3. The unshorn details of the facts leading to filing of the suit is that the suit land measuring area of Ac0.34 decimals pertaining to Sabik Plot No.239 under Sabik Khata No.35 in Mouza Mishra Brahmapur was purchased in the name of the plaintiff and his sister Sebati Dei on payment of consideration by the maternal uncle of the plaintiff vide registered sale deed No.6464 dated 19.9.1975. The Plaintiff’s mother Jamuna Dei being the mother guardian of the plaintiff executed document to look after minor share in the said suit land.

4. Be it stated that the father of the plaintiff died for which the plaintiff was compelled to stop the study and went for work to maintain his family. While the plaintiff had gone for work, his mother Jamuna Dei at the instigation of the plaintiff’s sister Sebati Dei sold out the plaintiff’s suit property during his minority vide registered sale deed Nos.2061 and 2062 dated 2.5.1986, respectively. At that time the plaintiff was not present in the village and he had gone to work place and then to hospital for treatment of tuberculosis. When this fact was brought to the knowledge of the plaintiff, he found that violating Section 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter called “the Act”) read with Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the aforesaid sale took place without any permission obtained from Court. Although it has been maintained in the impugned sale deed that the suit property was sold for the best interest of the minor-plaintiff and for legal necessity, but these averments were made fraudulently and by misrepresentation of facts. Thus, the said sale deeds are void under law which can be avoided by the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff gathered knowledge about fraud and mischief played over such property of the plaintiff during his minority, legal notice was issued to the defendants intimating that he should execute the ‘Nadabi Patra’ in his favour to regularize the sale but the defendants remained silent. Further, the defendants filed proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. against the plaintiff and his wife from coming over the suit land. So, finding no other way the plaintiff filed the suit to declare the sale made vide RSD Nos.2061 and 2062 as void and possession being redelivered to plaintiff. It is also prayed to issue R.O.R. to plaintiff and defendants be restrained from entering into the suit land.

5. The defendants filed written statement by refuting the entire allegation made in the plaint. It is the case of the respondent that there is no fraud or misrepresentation to make it void transaction exercised by the defendants. The defendants also denied about issue of any legal notice by the plaintiff during his minority to the defendants to execute ‘Nadabi Patra’ in favour of the plaintiff.

6. The Defendants in the written statement have clearly averred that they have purchased the suit land for consideration under registered sale deed Nos.2061 and 2062 followed by delivery of possession and the mother of the plaintiff has sold the share of the plaintiff for the benefit of the plaintiff who was minor by then. Plaintiff having attained majority has got ful