A sale of immovable property by a natural guardian in contravention of Section 8(1) and (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 can be challenged by way of suit by the minor only within the prescribed period of three years from attaining majority under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

G.C.Garg, J.

1. This is a plaintiffs appeal who remained unsuccessful in the two Courts below. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for joint possession of half share of the land sold by their brother Jagdish Chander through a registered sale deed dated 25-6-1257 on the ground that on the date of* sale both the plaintiffs were minors. Abnash Chander, Plaintiff was born on 9-7-1939 and Ramesh Chander was born on 20.4.1943. The vendor was not the guardian and thus had no right to sell their half share in the land in question. The sale was also challenged on the ground that it was not for the benefit of the plaintiffs and had been sold without permission of the Court.

2. The defendants contested the suit and alleged that the plaintiffs and the vendors constituted Joint Hindu Family and the sale made by Jagdish Chander who was the Karta of the family was perfectly legal. It was also pleaded that the sale in question was for the benefit of Joint Hindu Family and that the sale proceeds of the property were required for construction of the house and for trade and thus was for legal necessity. Sale of the Joint Hindu Family property was an act of good management and the vendees had made proper inquiries before purchasing the property. It was pleaded that the sale was for consideration and Jagdish Chander was Karta of the Joint Hindu Family of the Plaintiffs and vendors and thus had right to sell the property. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(1) Whether Plaintiffs are the owners to the extent of half share in the property in dispute ? OPP.

(2) Whether sale in question is void and is, therefore, not binding on the right of plaintiffs ? OPP.

(3) Whether the suit is within time ? OPP (objected to)

(4) Whether plaintiffs and the vendors defendants formed Joint Hindu Family at the time of sale ? OPD (Onus objected to).

(5) Whether property in suit was Joint Hindu Family property and the sale was by Karta ? If so, to what effect ? OPD.

(6) Whether the sale in question was for consideration legal necessity and was of good management and for the benefit of Joint Hindu Family ? If, so, to what effect ? OPD.

(7) Whether suit is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary party? OPD.

(8) Relief.

The learned Trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs were the owners of the half share and that the property was Joint Hindu Family Property and the sale made by Karta was valid and binding on the plaintiffs. Under issue No. 6, it was found that the sale was for consideration and legal necessity and an act of good management for the benefit of the Joint Hindu Family Under issue No. 3, however, it was found that the suit was within limitation having been brought within 12 years, from the date of sale. In view of the above findings, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

3. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the only point argued before the Lower Appellate Court was regarding the character of the Property. The argument was that the property was not Joint Hindu Family Property and thus the sale made by Jagdish Chander not binding on them.

The learned Additional District Judge found that the property was Joint Hindu Family Property. The question whether the suit was within limitation or not was not raised before the lower Appellate Court.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that sale in question was not by the Karta of Joint Hindu Family but by a co-owner. He submitted that the sale deed Ex. D 2 clearly showed that it was a sale by Jagdish Cbander in his individual capacity as also as an attorney for his brother and the minors through their mother and thus not binding on the plaintiffs. He further contended that the sale even if taken to be by Karta cannot bind them in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The learned Counsel further argued that the findings recorded by the Courts below that the property is Joint Hindu Fami