Stanley Batchelor, A C J - (1.)In this reference the facts are these : The suit, which was filed in September 1911, was brought to obtain possession of lands. The plaintiff attained majority on 10th June 1903 : on the 16th March 1903, and consequently while he was still an infant, he executed a deed of sale in favour of the defendant. The defendant had obtained possession under a mortgage of 1901, executed by the plaintiff s guardian in his favour. In the plaint the sale-deed of 16th March 1903 is mentioned, and it is pleaded that the deed is void by reason of the plaintiff s then infancy : there is no prayer that the deed should be set aside or cancelled.
(2.)The question we have to decide is whether the suit is governed by Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1908 : if it is so governed, then it is barred ; otherwise it is in time.
(3.)The sale-deed of March 1903 was, and is, void and inoperative by reason of the plaintiff s infancy. That being so, it is contended for the plaintiff that he was under no obligation to sue to get it set aside or cancelled, and that his omission to bring such a suit does not expose his present suit for possession to the bar created by Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act,