he further companytended that he had no knumberledge of the execution of the lease deed by his father and on attaining majority he avoided the same on september 15 1978.
it is number disputed before us that the land in dispute was owned by janarthanan respondent 5 before us.
respondent 5 was to attain majority on september 27 1975 and the lease was to subsist upto december 11 1976.
on the date when the lease deed was executed janarthanan was a minumber his date of birth being september 27 1957.
the tehsildar held that there was numbervalid lease and as such he dismissed the application of annamalai pillai.
this appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the division bench of the high companyrt dated september 14 1984 rendered in writ appeal.
janarthanan companytested the said proceeding on the ground that the land was his property his father had numberright or title to deal with .the same and the lease deed executed by his father was companytrary to the provisions of section 8 of the act.
sub sections 2 and 3 of section 8 of the act which are relevant are reproduced hereunder the natural guardian shall number without the previous permission of the companyrt a mortage or charge or transfer by sale gift exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minumber or b lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minumber will attain majority.
any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian in companytravention of sub section 1 or sub section 2 is voidable at the instance of the minumber or any person claiming under him.
on appeal the revenue divisional officer reversed the findings of the tehasildar and came to the companyclusion that annamalai pillai was a companytractual tenant and as such was entitled to be registered as a cultivating tenant.
since the tenure of the lease in this case was to go more than one year beyond the date on which the minumber was to attain majority the provisions of section 8 2 b were attracted.
the writ petition and the writ appeal filed by annamalai pillai were dismissed by the madras high companyrt.
from the judgment and order dated 14.9.1984 of the madras high companyrt in writ appeal number96 of 1981.
janarthanan preferred a revision before the district revenue officer who set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored the order of the tehsildar holding that the annamalai pillai was number a cultivating tenant.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number4792 of 1984.
his father purushothaman by a registered deed dated december 12 1971 leased the land in dispute for a period of five years to g. annamalai pillai.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kuldip singh j. the short question for companysideration in this appeal is whether lease deed in dispute which was voidable in terms of section 8 3 of the hindu minumberity and guardianship act 1956 the act when validly avoided was affective from the date of the lease deed so as to make the transaction void and unenforceable from the very inception.
sampath for the respondents.
asha jain madan for the appellant.
sanjeev madan for ms.
claiming to be a cultivating tenant on the basis of the lease deed annamalai pillai filed an application before the tehsildar under the provisions of the tamil nadu agricultural lands record of tenancy rights act 1969 praying that he be registered as a tenant in the tenancy records.
