Minor Can Repudiate Guardian's Voidable Sale Through Conduct After Attaining Majority, Not Necessary To File Suit : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that a minor, upon attaining majority, can repudiate a voidable sale made by their guardian not only by filing a suit but also through unequivocal conduct, such as selling the property to a third party.

“it can safely be concluded that a voidable transaction executed by the guardian of the minor can be repudiated and ignored by the minor within time on attaining majority either by instituting a suit for setting aside the voidable transaction or by repudiating the same by his unequivocal conduct.”, the Court said.

“it is not always necessary for a minor to institute a suit for cancellation of a voidable sale transaction executed by his guardian on attaining majority within the limitation provided and that such a transaction can be avoided or repudiated by his conduct.”, the Court added.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale addressed a question of whether a law suit is required to invalidate the sale made by the guardian on minor's behalf, upon the minor turning major, or the subsequent conduct of the minor upon turning major to sell the suit property to third party is sufficient to invalidate the earlier sale made by the guardian.

The dispute revolved around a plot of land in Karnataka. The property was originally owned by three minor brothers. Their father, acting as their natural guardian, sold the plot in 1971 to one Krishnoji Rao without obtaining the mandatory prior permission from the district court, as required by law.

Years later, after two of the minors attained majority, they, along with their mother, sold the very same plot in 1989 to the Appellant-K.S. Shivappa. The Appellant believing, he had acquired a valid title, built a house on the land.

The conflict arose when Krishnoji Rao, in 1993, sold the plot he had bought from the guardian-father to the Respondent-K. Neelamma. This led to a title dispute between the Appellant (who bought from the now-adult owners) and the Respondent (who bought from the original buyer from the guardian).

The trial court dismissed the Respondent's suit and held in Appellant's favour noting that the sale of the minor's property made by the guardian was without the Court's permission therefore the Respondent hold no good title over the suit property.

The First Appellate Court reversed the trial court's findings, which was subsequently affirmed by the High Court, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court by the Appellant.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mithal observed that a sale by a guardian without court permission is voidable at the instance of the minor, and repudiation need not always be by way of a lawsuit. It may also be established through clear acts that negate the guardian's sale.

Relying on Madhegowda v. Ankegowda, (2002) 1 SCC 178, the Court confirmed that the minors' subsequent sale to the Appellant-Shivappa within the limitation period was a valid repudiation.

“In the case at hand, undisputedly the surviving minors on attainment of majority had repudiated the transaction of sale executed by their father by entering into a fresh contract of sale of the property in question. It is admitted on record that on the basis of the sale deed executed by the father of the minors, the purchaser or the subsequent purchasers have not entered into possession and the name of the minors continued to appear in the revenue records. There is no material on record that the minors had the knowledge of the execution of the sale deed by their father. In the facts and circumstances, if they have avoided the sale executed by their father on attaining majority, it is sufficient repudiation of the said sale and it was not necessary for them to have instituted the suit for the cancellation of such a sale rather the purchasers of the property of the minors through the guardian on acquiring knowledge of the sale executed by the minors on attaining majority ought to have instituted a suit either for the cancellation of the sale deed executed by the minors or for declaration of their right, title and interest in the property.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the trial court's decision was restored.

Cause Title: K. S. SHIVAPPA VERSUS SMT. K. NEELAMMA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 981

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. G V Chandrashekar, Sr. Adv.(Argued by) Mr. N K Verma, Adv. Ms. Apeksha D, Adv. Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sureshan P., AOR (Argued by) Mr. Shivam Yadav, Adv.