Failure To Repudiate Voidable Sale Deed Within Reasonable Time After Attaining Majority Extinguishes Minor’s Rights: Allahabad High Court
The Court held that even if a guardian had no authority to execute a sale deed of a minor’s share, such transactions being voidable must be challenged within time after attaining majority, failing which the right stands extinguished.
The Allahabad High Court has held that a minor’s right to challenge a voidable sale deed executed by a guardian does not subsist indefinitely and must be exercised within a reasonable time after attaining majority.
The Court further held that failure to repudiate such transactions either through legal proceedings or conduct results in the extinguishment of the minor’s rights.
The Court was hearing writ petitions arising out of consolidation proceedings concerning disputed agricultural land, where the validity of sale deeds executed by a guardian on behalf of minor children was in question.
A Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, while stating that “it has to be seen whether minor children have taken any step or challenged the sale deed or repudiating it by way of any conduct to set aside the voidable transactions”, observed that the minor co-sharers, “have not taken any steps when they became major in the year 1962 and 1965 respectively as well as have not taken any steps repudiating voidable transactions by their conduct and further a suit was also dismissed”.
The Court, accordingly, held that “they have lost their rights, if any, on the land which was sold by their mother”.
Advocates Anil Kumar Singh, Jagdish Singh and Sushma Devi appeared for the petitioners; Advocate Manish Kumar Srivastava appeared for the respondents.
Background
The dispute related to agricultural land claimed by different parties through sale deeds executed by family members, including transactions carried out by a mother on behalf of her minor sons. The objectors contended that the land in question was ancestral and that sale deeds executed during their minority were invalid and did not bind their share.
The Consolidation Officer had partly accepted their claim and distributed shares accordingly. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, however, reversed these findings, holding that the sale deeds were valid and that the objectors had failed to challenge them within the prescribed period after attaining majority.
Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed revision. He restored the shares of the objectors, holding that the guardian had no authority to alienate the minor’s share and that such transactions were void.
Court’s Observation
The Court first examined the nature of the property and upheld the finding that the land in question retained its ancestral character, devolving through succession as reflected in revenue records. It held that the shares of the parties were required to be determined on that basis.
On the issue of the validity of sale deeds executed by the guardian, the Court noted that such transactions, particularly when not supported by legal necessity or benefit of the minors, are voidable in nature and can be set aside at the instance of the minor upon attaining majority.
However, the Court emphasised that the critical question was not merely whether the guardian had authority, but whether the minors, after attaining majority, had taken any steps to repudiate such transactions. It was observed that both Adya Shanker and Kripa Shanker became majors in 1962 and 1965, respectively, but did not initiate any timely proceedings to challenge the sale deeds. Even a civil suit instituted later was dismissed, and no effective repudiation was established.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.S. Shivappa v. K. Neelamma (2025), the Court reiterated: “… 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 found that the Revisional Authority had erred in focusing solely on the lack of authority of the guardian, without considering whether the minors had exercised their right to repudiate the voidable transactions within the permissible time. It held that this omission was fatal to the reasoning adopted by the Revisional Authority.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that since no timely challenge or repudiation was made, the rights, if any, of the minors in respect of the disputed land stood extinguished, and the contrary findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation were unsustainable in law.
Conclusion
The High Court set aside the findings of the Revisional Authority and held that the objectors had lost their rights in the disputed land due to failure to repudiate the voidable transactions within time after attaining majority.
The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Consolidation Officer to redistribute shares in accordance with the findings recorded by the Court.
Cause Title: Sarju and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:90275)