JUDGMENT

THOMMEN, J.:— The appellant is the defendant in a suit instituted by the respondent to set aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a minor and for recovery of possession of the property.. The suit was decreed, and the decree was confirmed by the first appellate court as well as by the High Court.

2. The plaintiff-respondent purchased the suit property from an ex-minor within three years after the minor attained majority. During his minority, the property was sold by his father as his natural guardian to a person from whom the present appellant purchased the property. All the courts found that the guardian had not obtained the permission of the Court for the sale of the property, as required by S. 8 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 ("the Guardianship Act") and that the sale of the property was not for legal necessity.

3. Dismissing the second appeal, the High Court held that the suit was rightly instituted by the respondent as a transferee from the ex-minor within three years after the minor attained majority and that the contention of the defendant that the suit by a transferee from the ex-minor was hit by S. 6(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was unsustainable.

4. The only question which arises in the present appeal, as it did before the High Court, is (to quote the words of the High Court)

"Whether a transferee from a minor after he attained majority, can file a suit to set aside the alienation made by the minors guardian or the said right is one to be exercised only by the minor?".

5. The relevant facts are that the suit property belonged to one Veerammal. She had a daughter by name Kaliammal. Veerammal died shortly after she purchased the property in 1948. She left behind her husband Kandayya and their daughter Kaliammal. Subsequently, Kandayya married a second time when his daughter Kaliammal was a minor. She thereupon left her fathers house and resided with her maternal grand-father who protected and maintained her. During her minority, Kandayya sold the property on 29-10-1959 to Jainulavudeen. On 25-4-1966, Jainulavudeen in turn sold the property to the defendant-appellant. Subsequently, on 26-5-1966 the plaintiff obtained a deed of sale of the suit, property in his favour from Kaliammal who had by then attained majority. The plaintiff thereafter instituted the present suit (O.S. No. 491 of 1968) against the appellant to set aside the transfer of property made by Kandayya and for recovery of its possession.

6. The question is whether the respondent in. his capacity as a transferee from the exminor was competent to bring a suit to set aside the sale effected by the minors guardian. It is no longer disputed that the suit was brought within three years after the minor attained majority. Nor is it any longer contended that the father of the minor, as her natural guardian, had obtained the permission of the Court or that the sale effected by him was one for legal necessity. These two vital points have been concurrently found against the appellant. The only contention which Mr. Sampath, appearing for the appellant, is in a position to urge is as regards the question whether the suit is hit by S. 6(e) of the T.P. Act. Counsel says that all that the ex-minor was in a position to transfer, and did transfer, was her mere right to sue to set aside the sale and recover possession of the property transferred by his (her?) father as his (her?) natural guardian. The property itself had been transferred by the father prior to its sale by the ex-minor. The minor had, therefore, no property to sell, except a right to set aside the sale. Accordingly, whatever transfer that was effected by the minor in favour of the plaintiff was nothing more than a mere right to sue and such transfer was invalid by reason of S. 6(e) of the T. P. Act.

7. Mr. Balakrishna, appearing for the respondent plaintiff, contends that the examinor was fully competent to bring a suit to set aside the sale within a period of three y