Judgment :- 1. Defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants. The suit is for cancellation of Ext. Al sale deed dated 20-6-1966. Ext. Al was executed by the 4th defendant to defendants 1 to 3. Plaintiff is the daughter of the 4th defendant. Cancellation is sought on the ground that Ext. Al is not supported by consideration and necessity and also on the ground that mother was not competent to alienate the property. 2. Plaintiff obtained the property under Ext. B1 partition dated 18-2-1957. Plaintiff was a minor at the time of partition. Plaintiff came to know of Ext. Al in 1976. Defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation, that plaintiff's mother was competent to execute the sale deed and that in fact the sale deed was executed on account of minor's necessity and also for proper consideration. It is also stated that with the amount of Ext. Al sale consideration another property was purchased as per Ext. B2 in the name of the plaintiff. 3. The trial Court decreed the suit stating that mother of the plaintiff, the de facto guardian, was incompetent to alienate the property. This has been confirmed by the Sub Judge. 4. Under S.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship, Act, 1956 father is the natural guardian and only in the absence of father the mother can be the guardian. The question that arises for consideration is whether the mother of a minor can alienate his property when his father is alive overlooking the provisions of the Nair Act. 5. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. S.5 provides that save as otherwise expressly provided under the Act, any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act. Therefore the provisions of the Nair Act cannot have any application. There is express provision in the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act as to bow property of minors has to be dealt with. Under S.11 there is absolute prohibition to deal with the property of the minors by a de facto guardian. Therefore the provisions of the Nair Act cannot have any application. There is express provision in the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act as to bow property of minors has to be dealt with. Under S.11 there is absolute prohibition to deal with the property of the minors by a de facto guardian. S.11 interdicts the de facto guardian from dealing with the property of the minors. The section makes it clear that after the commencement of the Act, no person shall be entitled to dispose of, or deal with, the property of a Hindu minor merely on the ground of his or her being the de facto guardian. S.6 provides that the natural guardian of a Hindu minor in respect of his person as well as property excluding bis or her undivided interest in the joint family property or in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl is the father and after him the mother. In the case in hand at the time of Ext. A-1 father of the minor plaintiff was alive. Thus the indubitable position is that natural guardian was plaintiff's father at the time of Ext. A-1. S.8 of the Act enumerates the powers of a natural guardian. S.8(2) specifically prohibits the natural guardian from alienating property of minors without the permission of the Court. S.8(3) states that any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian in contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. Under S.11 there is total prohibition for a de facto guardian to deal with the property of minors. As there is total prohibition as provided under S.11 the alienation effected by plaintiff's mother is void. If Ext. A-1 is void it does not confer any title on the defendants. If so, plaintiff can recover the property on the strength of her title. 6. Contention of the appellants is that the document is only voidable and therefore the suit is barred by limitation. It has been held in 1978 KLT 532 (Ayyappan Ezhuthachan v. Antony) that the power of disposal of the minor's property is only with the natural guardian and not with a defacto guardian and therefore the mother's alienation is void. As Ext. A-1 is a void transaction, there is no merit in the contention that the suit is barred by limitation. 7. As Ext. A-1 is a void transaction, there is no merit in the contention that the suit is barred by limitation. 7. It is contended that the father was an an attestor in Ext. A-1 and therefore it has to be presumed that he was aware of the alienation made by the mother. Merely because father has attested Ext. A-1 it cannot be given any validity. In AIR 1972 Mysore 31 it is held as follows: "As the law stands after the coming into force of the Art, under no circumstances a defacto guardian can transfer the minor's property merely on the ground of his being a de facto guardian. After coming into force of the Act. in view of the provisions of S.11 of the Act, a minor on attaining majority cannot validate a sale by a de facto guardian by ratification " It has been held in Modern Food Industries India Ltd. v. S. K. Bottlers (P) Ltd. (AIR 1984 Kerala 118) that where the father is alive and is not disqualified to act as the guardian of the minor it is incompetent for the mother to interpose herself as the guardian of the minor and any alienation of the minor's property by her acting as his guardian is destitute of legal effect and there is no need for the minor to sue for the cancellation of the sale. 8. It is next contended that even assuming that the sale is void the lower courts ought to have applied the equitable principles contained in S.35 of the Transfer of Property Act. S.33 of the Specific Relief Act and S.64 of the Indian Contract Act. As Ext. B-2 property was not purchased exclusively in the name of the plaintiff, I find no substance in the above contention. 9. There is no evidence that regarding Ext. Al property plaintiff had only undivided interest in joint family property and therefore the contention that her mother as legal guardian could alienate the property is not tenable. Ext. Al clearly shows item 2 in Ext. Al belonged to the plaintiff exclusively. Contention that Art.60 of the Limitation Act is applicable and so the suit is barred by limitation is also devoid of merit. The Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.