Supreme Court On Minor's Property and Repudiation, Affecting Subsequent Transfers

In a significant judgment, in case of K. S. Shivappa vs Smt. K. Neelamma (2025 INSC 1195), the Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment which held that no suit for cancellation of the earlier sale deed was filed by the (former) Minors on attaining majority, holding the sale deed executed by their natural guardian had attained finality.

The matter is stemmed from a sale of Plot No. 57, which was initially purchased by Rudrappa (father) of the minors. The father, Rudrappa, acting as their natural guardian, subsequently sold the plot (which he purchased on the names on his minor sons) violating Section 8(2) of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (Click to Download), which requires obtaining Court permission and must be done in the interst on minors.

One K. Neelamma, respondent herein, eventually acquired the property which was earlier sold by the natural guardian of the minors. However, the minors upon attaining the majoirty, rather than filing a suit for cancellation, repudiated their father's sale by executing a fresh registered sale deed in favor of the appellant, K. S. Shivappa.

The core legal question before the Apex Court was whether the minors were legally required to file a formal suit for cancellation of the earlier sale deed, as held by the High Court, or if their subsequent transfer of the property constituted sufficient repudiation.

The Supreme Court held that filing a suit was not mandatory, and that the appellant Shivappa held a valid title.

Important Observations:

The Apex Court focused on interpreting Section 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and analyzed the concept of a voidable transaction:

The Supreme Court definitively held that a disposition of a minor’s immovable property by a natural guardian in contravention of Section 8(2) (i.e., without court permission) is voidable at the instance of the minor and it is not always necessary for the minor to institute a formal suit for cancellation on attaining majority.

Such a transaction can be avoided or repudiated either expressly by filing a suit or impliedly by their unequivocal conduct, such as by transferring the property themselves within the prescribed (limitation) time. This option is permissible because the minor may not always be aware of the prior unauthorized transaction.

The Supreme Court ruled that a minor, upon attaining majority, can repudiate an unauthorized sale of their property (executed without court permission under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act) through an unequivocal act, such as executing a fresh sale deed, without needing to file a formal cancellation suit.

So also on the Voidable nature of the transaction which turns into transaction 'Void Ab Initio', the Supreme Court held that the transaction, though initially voidable, becomes void from its very inception, meaning the avoidance relates back to the date the transaction was first made. In the present case case, the minors’ subsequent sale to Shivappa (the appellant herein) was deemed sufficient repudiation, transferring no valid right or title to the intermediate purchaser Neelamma’s (respondent's) vendor.

Additionally, the Apex Court also questioned the failure of the Respondent/plaintiff, Smt. K. Neelamma, to enter the witness box to prove her plaint case or assert her title, however, dismissing the testimony provided by her Power-of-Attorney holder (PW-1) as inadmissible. Since the facts were within the personal knowledge of the plaintiff. The Court reiterate that a proxy cannot substitute the principal’s personal testimony on key issues. This procedural flaw independently mandated the failure of Neelamma’s suit.

Coram: Justice Pankaj Mithal & Justice Prasanna B. Varale.