12. A simple reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it abundantly clear that a natural guardian of a minor has no authority in law to mortgage, sell, gift or otherwise transfer any part of the immovable property of the minor or even to lease out 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 minor will attain majority without the prior permission of the court. Therefore, prior permission of the court is a sine qua non for a guardian of a minor to transfer the property of the minor in any of the manners provided under sub-Section (2) of Section 8 of the Act.

13. Sub-Section (3) of Section 8 of the Act in unequivocal terms provides that the disposal of any immovable property by the 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. In other words, if the natural guardian or a minor disposes of the immovable property of a minor in contravention of sub-Section (1) and sub-Section (2) particularly without the permission of the court, such a transaction would be voidable at the instance of the minor.

14. The aforesaid provision, however, nowhere categorically provide the manner in which such a transaction of disposal of the property of a minor by a guardian without the permission of the court would be a voidable. Such a transaction can be avoided or repudiated by the minor expressly by filing a suit for the cancellation of such a transaction or impliedly by his conduct namely by transferring the property himself on attaining the majority within the time prescribed. The avoidance of such a transaction by conduct appears to be permissible for two reasons. First, at times the minor may not be aware of such a transaction and as such may not be in a position to institute any suit; secondly, the transaction of such a nature, if any, may not have been given effect to and the party acquiring right in the property may not be having possession of the property giving an impression that the property is intact in the hands of the minor, in which case also the minor on attaining majority may not deem it proper to institute a suit.

22. In view of the legal opinion expressed by Travellyan, Mulla and the High Courts of Allahabad, Madras and Kerala, it is amply clear that a transaction in relation to the property of a minor executed in contravention of the express provisions of Section 8 of the Act is voidable at the option of the minor or any person claiming under him and such an option to avoid a transaction of the above nature can be by initiating a law suit or may be by conduct as enumerated above.