The disposal of property by a natural guardian is voidable, not void ab initio, and the limitation period for challenging such disposal is three years from the date of the minor's attaining majority.

Rajbir Sehrawat, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below; whereby their suit for possession regarding the suit property was dismissed.

2. For convenience, the parties would be referred herein as the plaintiffs and defendants; as they were referred in the original suit.

3. The brief facts of this case are that the suit for possession was filed by the plaintiffs, claiming that they are the owner of the suit property. However, about one month ago, the defendant had taken the possession of the suit land illegally. The defendant was requested to vacate the same. However, she refused to vacate it and she claimed that she had obtained the suit land on lease from their mother vide lease deed dated 30.08.1962. It was claimed that the mother of the plaintiff never executed any lease deed as claimed by defendant. Further it was claimed that the plaintiff No.1 was born on 10.10.1941 while the plaintiff No.2 was born on 12.12.1944. Therefore, the impugned lease deed dated 30.08.1962 is not binding upon them. Hence, the possession of the suit property was prayed for.

4. Upon notice, the defendant contested the suit by taking routine preliminary objections. On merits, it was averred that the defendant is in possession of the suit land under the lease deed duly executed in her favour for a period of 99 years; which will expire in the year 2061. It was further denied that the plaintiffs did not have the knowledge of the registered lease deed dated 30.08.1962. Therefore, it was prayed that the plaintiffs were not entitled to seek possession of the suit land before the expiry of lease deed.

5. Parties led their respective evidence.

6. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court held that in the present case, the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land is not disputed. Therefore, the plaintiffs were held to be the owners of the suit property. However, so far as the lease deed is concerned, the learned trial Court held that, admittedly, the lease deed was executed by the mother of the plaintiffs as natural guardian. Still further, the plaintiff No. 1 was already major at the time of execution of the lease deed and he is also the signatory to the lease deed. So far as the plaintiff No. 2 is concerned, the learned trial Court held that the plaintiff No. 2 had attained majority on 12.12.1962, just after 4 months of the execution of the said lease deed. Therefore, if he had any grievance against the lease deed, he should have challenged the same within the period of three years after attaining majority as per the law of limitation. However, admittedly, the suit was filed after about 25 years. Therefore, the suit, filed by the plaintiffs was held to be time barred. Hence, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved against this judgment and decree, the plaintiffs filed appeal before learned Appellate Court.

7. However, the lower Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs on the same ground of limitation and the plaintiff No. 1 being signatory to the lease deed. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants.

8. While arguing the case, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that, admittedly, the plaintiff No. 2 was minor at the time when the lease deed was executed. Therefore, the lease deed was void ab initio. Therefore, the same is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff No. 2. Since, the lease deed is void, therefore, there is no limitation for challenging the same.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that both the Courts below have rightly passed the judgments and decrees. According to learned counsel for the respondent the disposal of the property of the minor by natural guardian, is at the best, voidable at the instance for the minor on attaining the majority. Such