A lease of a minor's property is voidable at the instance of the minor, and a suit for possession after the expiry of the lease is maintainable as it is filed in exercise of the right of the minors to avoid the lease.

G.R.Majithia, J.

1. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court reversing on appeal those of the trial Judge and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellants for restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering in their peaceful possession.

2. the facts :-

The plaintiff-appellants (hereinafter the plaintiffs) alleged that they were owners-in-possession of the disputed land; that in June, 1975, land measuring 84 Kanals 2 Marias described in paragraph 3 of the plaint was given on lease to the defendant-respondent (hereinafter the defendant) for five years for cultivation as lessee at the rate of Rs. 800/- per annum; that the said lease period expired on June 10, 1980; that after June 15, 1980, the plaintiffs cultivated the land and continued to be in possession as owners and that the defendant threatened to interfere in their peaceful possession, thus necessitating the filing of the suit giving rise to this second appeal.

3. The defendant denied the allegations made in the plaint and pleaded that the terms of the lease were not settled; that it was settled between the parties that he was to continue to remain in possession of the suit land as a lessee on payment of Rs. 500/- per annum as lease money; that he was in possession of the suit land as a tenant under the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs received rent of Rs. 500/- in the year 1981 from him and that too after 10th of June; that plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 were majors and were wrongly shown as minors and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction.

4. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?

3. Relief. ......

2A. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit land as tenant; if so, to what effect? OPD

2B. Whether the defendant is in possession of the suit land as tenant; if so, to what effect? OPD

2C. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD

2D. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their Act and conduct? OPD

5. Issues No. 1, 2A and 2B were dealt together and it was held by the trial Judge that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and the defendant was neither in possession as tenant nor had tenancy rights over the suit land; issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and it was held that the suit was maintainable; issue No. 2-C was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant on the ground that the defendant had failed to establish that he was a tenant over the suit land and, therefore, the civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit; issue No. 2-D was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant and it was held that there was nothing on the file to show any act or conduct of the plaintiffs estopping them to file the present suit. As a result of the findings under issues No. 1, 2-A and 2-B, the plaintiffs suit was decreed.

6. The defendant assailed the judgment and decree of the trial Court in first appeal and the first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Judge on the following grounds:-

(i) The lease was voidable at the instance of the minor lessors. On the expiry of the lease, they did not take steps to avoid the same;

(ii) The defendant was in possession of the suit land prior to the execution of the lease deed and continued to remain in possession thereof after the expiry of the lease;

(iii) On the expiry of the lease, the lessee could be evicted only under the provisions of section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.

7. The conclusions arrived at by the first appellate Court are neither supported at law nor on facts. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 says that a natural guardian can lease any part of minors immovable propert