In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified an important aspect of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956—specifically, the nature of transactions executed by a natural guardian without the court’s permission under Section 8(2) and the means by which such transactions may be repudiated.
The Court settled a long-standing question: Is it necessary for a minor, upon attaining majority, to file a civil suit to set aside an alienation made by their guardian without court permission, or can such alienation be avoided by conduct?
The ruling establishes that a minor can repudiate a voidable transaction either by filing a suit or through unequivocal conduct, such as selling or transferring the property upon attaining majority.
Title of Case: K.S. Shivappa v. Smt. K. Neelamma
Citation: 2025 INSC 1195
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Date of Judgment: 7 October 2025
Factual Background
Original Ownership and Early Transactions
- The land in dispute consisted of two plots (Nos. 56 and 57), carved out of Survey Nos. 113/2 and 114/1 in Village Shamanur.
- The plots were originally owned by Mahadevappa, who sold them in 1971 to Rudrappa, who purchased them in the names of his three minor sons: Maharudrappa, Basavaraj, and Mungeshappa.
- The minors thereby became joint owners of the property.
Unauthorised Sale by Natural Guardian
- In 1971, Rudrappa (the father and natural guardian) sold Plot No. 56 to S.I. Bidari without obtaining permission from the district court, as required under Section 8(2) of the Act.
- Later, S.I. Bidari sold the plot to Smt. B.T. Jayadevamma in 1983.
Subsequent Sale by the Minors upon Majority
- When the surviving minors attained majority, they—along with their mother—sold Plot No. 56 to K.S. Shivappa via a registered sale deed on 3 November 1989.
- The sale by the minors was executed within the limitation period and was treated as a repudiation of the earlier voidable sale by their father.
Parallel Transaction for Plot No. 57
- Similarly, Rudrappa sold Plot No. 57 to Krishnoji Rao in December 1971, again without court permission.
- In 1993, Krishnoji Rao sold the same plot to Smt. K. Neelamma (the respondent).
- Meanwhile, the minors (on attaining majority) and their mother sold Plot No. 57 to K.S. Shivappa, the same buyer of Plot No. 56.
- Shivappa merged both plots and constructed a house.
Litigation Commences
- Smt. K. Neelamma filed O.S. No. 76/1997 before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Davanagere, seeking declaration, possession, and injunction over Plot No. 57.
- The case centred on whether her title under the 1993 sale deed from Krishnoji Rao was valid, despite the original sale being executed by the minors’ father without judicial approval.
Procedural History
Trial Court (1997–2003)
- The trial court dismissed the suit on 14 February 2003, holding that the sale by the father was voidable, not void.
- Since the minors, upon attaining majority, sold the same property to Shivappa within the limitation period, that act constituted repudiation of the earlier sale.
- Therefore, Neelamma’s vendor (Krishnoji Rao) had no valid title to transfer.
First Appellate Court (2003–2005)
- Neelamma appealed in R.A. No. 67/2003, which was allowed on 30 June 2005.
- The appellate court held that since the minors did not file a suit to cancel their father’s sale, they could not legally sell the property upon majority.
- Thus, Neelamma’s title was upheld.
High Court (2013)
- In R.S.A. No. 1522/2003, the Karnataka High Court dismissed Shivappa’s second appeal on 19 March 2013.
- The High Court reasoned that failure to institute a cancellation suit meant the father’s sale had attained finality.
Supreme Court Appeal (2025)
- Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, K.S. Shivappa approached the Supreme Court.
- The matter before the Court pertained only to Plot No. 57, as litigation regarding Plot No. 56 had already attained finality.
Issue
The central question before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether it is necessary for minors, on attaining majority, to file a suit to set aside a sale deed executed by their natural guardian without court permission, or whether such a transaction can be repudiated through conduct within the limitation period.
Relevant Law
Section 8, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
Sub-section (2):
The natural guardian shall not, without prior permission of the court, mortgage, sell, or otherwise transfer any part of the minor’s immovable property.
Sub-section (3):
Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian in contravention of sub-sections (1) or (2) is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him.
The statute clearly makes the transaction voidable, not void, but it does not specify how such repudiation must occur.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Nature of Unauthorised Guardian Transactions
The Court reiterated that:
- Any transfer of a minor’s immovable property by a natural guardian without prior court permission is voidable, not void.
- It becomes void only when repudiated by the minor upon attaining majority.
How a Voidable Transaction Can Be Repudiated
Justice Mithal examined scholarly opinions and precedents:
- Travellyan’s Law on Minors (5th Ed.) – A voidable transaction may be repudiated “by any act or omission” showing an intention to reject it; filing a suit is not mandatory.
- Mulla’s Hindu Law (12th Ed.) – The reversioners (or minors) can treat an invalid alienation as a nullity “without the intervention of a court.”
Thus, the Court recognised that repudiation can occur either by filing a suit or by conduct.
Judicial Precedents Considered
The Court reviewed several cases to establish the principle:
- Abdul Rahman v. Sukhdayal Singh (1905 All HC): A minor can repudiate a lease by selling the property after majority—no need for a separate cancellation suit.
- G. Annamalai Pillai v. District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore (Mad HC 1984; SCC 1993 2 SCC 402): A lease executed without permission was avoided by the minor after majority; the avoidance was valid without court intervention.
- Chacko Mathew v. Ayyappan Kutty (1961 Ker HC): A party entitled to avoid a transaction can do so by an unequivocal act—no necessity of a formal lawsuit.
- Madhegowda v. Ankegowda (2002) 1 SCC 178: A minor may repudiate the transfer by asserting ownership through any lawful act after majority.
- Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan (2001) 6 SCC 163: Concerned limitation for adding a cancellation prayer—did not mandate filing a suit in every case.
- Nangali Amma Bhavani Amma v. Gopalkrishnan Nair (2004) 8 SCC 785: While acknowledging the need to act within limitation, it did not hold that a lawsuit was the only permissible mode.
- Murugan v. Kesava Gounder (2019) 20 SCC 633: Reiterated that possession cannot be claimed without setting aside a voidable sale, but not that a suit is mandatory to repudiate it.
The Court concluded that none of the precedents compelled the filing of a suit; repudiation through conduct remains valid.
Legal Principle Established
The Court laid down a clear rule:
A voidable transaction executed by a guardian in contravention of Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act can be repudiated by the minor either by instituting a suit or by unequivocal conduct upon attaining majority.
Repudiation through conduct could include:
- Transferring or selling the same property,
- Resisting recognition of the earlier transferee’s rights,
- Acting in any manner inconsistent with the earlier transaction.
Effect of Repudiation
Referring to G. Annamalai Pillai and Salmond’s Jurisprudence, the Court explained that:
- Once a voidable transaction is avoided, it becomes void ab initio—as though it never existed.
- The avoidance “relates back” to the date of the original transaction.
- Hence, any rights derived under the earlier invalid sale cease entirely.
Application to Present Case
Repudiation by the Minors
- The surviving minors and their mother, on attaining majority, executed a fresh sale deed in favour of K.S. Shivappa within the prescribed limitation period.
- This act amounted to an unequivocal repudiation of the father’s 1971 sale to Krishnoji Rao.
Absence of Possession or Knowledge
- The earlier purchaser (and subsequent transferees) had never taken possession, and the revenue records still showed the minors’ names.
- Thus, the minors were within their rights to treat the property as unencumbered and sell it afresh.
Burden on the Subsequent Purchaser (Neelamma)
- Neelamma failed to verify her vendor’s title or prove that Krishnoji Rao had any valid ownership to transfer.
- She did not appear as a witness in court, nor prove the sale deed herself.
- Her power of attorney holder’s testimony was held inadmissible as per Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd. (2005) 2 SCC 217 and Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar (2024 SCC OnLine SC 981).
Resultant Legal Position
- The sale deed in favour of Shivappa was valid.
- The earlier sale by Rudrappa (without court permission) was repudiated by conduct.
- Therefore, Neelamma derived no title or right over Plot No. 57.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Findings
- The Court held that a minor need not always file a suit to cancel a voidable transaction.
- Repudiation through conduct, such as selling or otherwise acting against the prior sale, suffices.
- Since the minors had validly repudiated the earlier sale and transferred the property to Shivappa within the limitation, the subsequent transferee (Neelamma) acquired no rights.
- Furthermore, Neelamma’s failure to depose personally or prove the sale deed was fatal to her claim.
Orders
- The judgment of the Karnataka High Court (2013) and the First Appellate Court (2005) were set aside.
- The Trial Court’s judgment dismissing Neelamma’s suit was restored.
- The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court in K.S. Shivappa v. Smt. K. Neelamma reaffirmed a protective and pragmatic interpretation of minors’ property rights. It ruled that minors, upon attaining majority, need not necessarily approach a court to annul a guardian’s unauthorised sale. Instead, repudiation through unambiguous conduct within limitation is legally sufficient.
Consequently, Shivappa’s title over Plot No. 57 was upheld, while Neelamma’s claim failed due to a lack of a valid title and inadequate proof. The Court thus restored the trial court’s decree and reinforced the broader principle that the law favours substance over form in protecting minors’ interests.