Voidable transfer by natural guardian must be set aside in time before civil court; consolidation authorities cannot ignore it.

A natural guardian's sale of a minor's immovable property without prior court permission is voidable, not void, and remains effective until avoided in the manner recognised by law. A challenge to such a transfer must be brought within three years from majority under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, and consolidation authorities cannot annul or disregard the deed on their own. Because the objections were raised after limitation had expired, and the plea of late knowledge was rejected, the challenge was not maintainable before the consolidation authorities and the impugned orders could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the minors could successfully challenge, before the consolidation authorities, a sale deed executed by their father as natural guardian without previous court permission, and whether such challenge was barred by limitation and beyond the competence of those authorities.

Analysis: The sale of a minor's immovable property by a natural guardian without previous permission of the court under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is not void but voidable at the instance of the minor. A voidable transfer remains effective unless avoided in the manner recognised by law, and the prescribed period under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for a suit by the ward to set aside such transfer is three years from majority. The Court further held that a consolidation authority cannot itself annul or ignore a deed whose legal effect continues until it is set aside by a competent civil court. The objections were raised after the right to challenge had become time-barred, and the factual plea of late knowledge was rejected.

Conclusion: The challenge to the sale deed was not maintainable before the consolidation authorities, the impugned orders could not stand, and the petitioner succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer by a natural guardian made without the court's permission is voidable, not void, and it must be set aside within the prescribed limitation by recourse to a civil court before its legal effect can be displaced.

---