Judgment Kiran Anand Lall, J. 1. Civil Suit No. 473 of 1967 filed by Avtar Singh and Nirmal Singh plaintiffs for possession of the land detailed in the plaint, having been decreed by the courts below, Hari Singh defendant filed this regular second appeal, challenging that verdict. 2. As per the facts given in the plaint, the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be owners to the extent of 2/15th share of the total land measuring 141 kanals 3 marlas. They and the other co-sharers were in its joint possession. However, later on, the defendant had entered into its possession, and on being enquired, he claimed that he had purchased the entire land on 3.4.1962, from Tarlok Singh etc. and the share of minor plaintiffs was sold by their mother, Kartar Kaur, in her capacity of being their natural guardian. According to the plaintiffs, Tarlok Singh etc. were not competent to sell their (of plaintiffs) share in the land as they were minors at the time of the sale, and the sale was void in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, as per which a natural guardian cannot transfer land of his minor ward without the permission of court. Therefore, it was pleaded that the sale of land to the extent of their share was illegal and void and was not binding on them. As such, the plaintiffs claimed that a decree for possession of land measuring 18 kanals 16 marlas, being 2/15th share in the total land measuring 141 kanals 3 marlas be passed in their favour on the basis of ownership. 3. The defendant contested the suit, taking up the plea of limitation and challenging the valuation of suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. Plea of minority of the plaintiffs at the time of alienation was disputed. It was further pleaded that the sale had been effected for consideration and also for the benefit of plaintiffs. In the alternative, it was pleaded that In case of decretal of suit, the defendant should be compensated in lieu of the benefit, drawn by the plaintiffs. 4. Both courts having decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendant came up in second appeal, to this Court. 5. In the alternative, it was pleaded that In case of decretal of suit, the defendant should be compensated in lieu of the benefit, drawn by the plaintiffs. 4. Both courts having decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendant came up in second appeal, to this Court. 5. During arguments, learned Counsel for the parties addressed this Court on the following substantial question of law which arises in this appeal. Whether a suit for possession simpliciter of the alienated property, without making a prayer for setting aside the sale deed to the extent of shares of the minors (plaintiffs), was maintainable? 6. Learned counsel for both parties have been heard on the above question of law. 7. It having not been disputed during arguments that both the plaintiffs were minors at the time of sale and land of their share was sold by their mother without obtaining permission of court, provisions of Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act. 1956, no doubt, get attracted. This Section states that the natural guardian shall not, without previous permission of the court, transfer by sale any part of the immovable property of the minor. Sub-section (3) of this Section specifically provides that any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of Sub-section (2) is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. The sale of the said land, therefore, to the extent of the share of the plaintiffs was, therefore, not void but was voidable at the instance of the plaintiffs, and if the plaintiffs wanted to avoid this sale-transaction and regain the land from the purchaser (defendant) they were required to get the same set aside. But, as the record shows, they had never made any prayer for setting aside of the sale, at any stage. Their case, through out, had been that the sale transaction, if any, in respect of the disputed land, was void-ab-initio and was not binding on them. Well, if in law they were required to have the sale deed set aside before making any claim in respect of the land sold, a suit without such a prayer was of no avail to them. In fact, claim for possession of the land sold could not have been made without asking for setting aside the sale-deed and the suit for possession simpliciter was not maintainable. In fact, claim for possession of the land sold could not have been made without asking for setting aside the sale-deed and the suit for possession simpliciter was not maintainable. In this connection, learned Counsel for the appellant, relied upon Vishwambkar and Ors. v. Laxminarayan (dead) through Lrs. and Anr. wherein the proposition of law involved was almost similar. The plaintiffs therein had even, at a later stage, filed an application for amendment of the plaint, seeking to introduce the prayer for setting aside the sale deeds. But, since the amendment was asked for after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act for setting aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward, by the ward who had attained majority and the period was to be computed from the date when the ward attained majority, the Apex Court held that as by the date the defect was rectified by introducing (by amendment of the plaint) a prayer for the setting aside of the sale-deeds, the prescribed period of limitation for seeking such a relief was over, even the amendment of the plaint could not come to the rescue of the plaintiffs. It was further held that in such circumstances, the suit for setting aside the transfers would be taken to have been filed on the date the amendment of the plaint was allowed and not earlier than that. The facts of the case in hand art; on a much better footing in so far as the appellant (defendant) is concerned, as here the plaintiffs had not asked for the relief of setting aside the sale deed, at any stage, even by way of amendment of plaint. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be accepted, resulting into dismissal of the suit on the ground of non maintainability. Out of the other four questions placed on record by the learned Counsel for the appellant, as substantial questions of law, questions No. 2 to 5 cannot be termed as questions of law, and question no. 2 would not arise as no fault can be found with the concurrent finding of the courts below that the suit land had not been proved to be a joint Hindu family property. The appeal is, accordingly, accepted on the ground of non-maintainability of the suit for possession simpliciter, as discussed in para no. 2 would not arise as no fault can be found with the concurrent finding of the courts below that the suit land had not been proved to be a joint Hindu family property. The appeal is, accordingly, accepted on the ground of non-maintainability of the suit for possession simpliciter, as discussed in para no. 7 above, and resultantly the suit shall stand dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.