New Delhi: In a landmark ruling on property dealings involving minors, the Supreme Court has held that individuals who were below 18 years at the time of a property transaction are not required to file a formal lawsuit to repudiate property transfers made by their natural guardians without court approval. Instead, they can invalidate such transfers through clear and unequivocal conduct once they attain majority.
Delivering the judgment on October 7, a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale said minors, after reaching adulthood, can repudiate such transactions by actions that clearly show their intent — for example, by selling or transferring the same property themselves.
“A voidable transaction executed by a guardian on behalf of a minor can be repudiated or ignored by the minor upon attaining majority, either by filing a suit or by manifesting clear conduct indicating repudiation,” Justice Mithal wrote in the verdict.
The ruling came in the case of K S Shivappa vs Smt K Neelamma, which raised the key question of whether minors, upon attaining majority, must institute a suit within the limitation period to set aside a sale deed executed by their guardian, or whether such repudiation could be done through conduct within three years of majority.
Citing Sections 7 and 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the court reaffirmed that a natural guardian cannot mortgage, sell, gift, or lease a minor’s immovable property beyond prescribed limits without prior permission of a court.
“Prior permission of the court is a sine qua non for any such transfer,” the bench said.
The case concerned two adjoining plots—Nos. 56 and 57—in Shamanur village, Davanagere (Karnataka). The plots were originally purchased in 1971 by Rudrappa in the names of his three minor sons. Without court approval, Rudrappa later sold the plots to third parties.
After the sons became majors, they and their mother sold the same properties to K S Shivappa in 1989. Competing buyers challenged the sale, leading to a series of court disputes.
The Karnataka High Court had ruled that since the minors did not file a formal suit to set aside their father’s sale, the original transaction stood valid. However, the Supreme Court overturned this, holding that the minors’ later sale of the property constituted valid repudiation.
Clarifying the law, the bench said the statute does not prescribe a specific method for repudiating a voidable sale.
“Such a transaction can be avoided either expressly by filing a suit or impliedly through unequivocal conduct, such as transferring the property upon attaining majority,” the judgment stated.
The court also noted practical reasons for allowing repudiation through conduct: minors might be unaware of transactions made during their minority, or the property may have remained in their possession, making a formal suit unnecessary.
This ruling thus reinforces that minors can repudiate unauthorized property transfers by their guardians through conduct alone, without the need for a separate lawsuit, as long as the repudiation occurs within the legal time frame after attaining majority.
