Sale Of Minor’s Property Can Be Repudiated By Conduct On Attaining Majority; Filing Of Suit For Cancellation Not Mandatory: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was hearing an appeal arising out of a dispute relating to the sale of immovable property that had been executed by a natural guardian on behalf of his minor sons without obtaining the sanction of the Court.

A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, while adjudicating the matter, observed that “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."

Senior Advocate G V Chandrashekar represented the appellants, while Advocate Sureshan P, AOR, appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

The father of three minor sons had purchased two adjoining plots in their names and later sold them without obtaining prior permission from the competent Court. On attaining majority, the minors sold the same plots to another purchaser. The earlier purchaser filed a suit asserting ownership based on the earlier sale deed. 

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the sale executed by the father was voidable and that the minors had repudiated it on attaining majority by selling the property themselves.

The First Appellate Court and the High Court set aside that finding, holding that the minors were required to institute a separate suit for cancellation. Aggrieved by the decision, the present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court examined Section 8(2) and 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and noted that “prior permission of the court is a sine qua non for a guardian of a minor to transfer the property of the minor in any of the manners provided under sub-Section (2) of Section 8 of the Act.”

The Apex Court, while refering to a series of precedents, further clarified that “Sub-Section (3) of Section 8 of the Act in unequivocal terms provides that the disposal of any immovable property by the natural guardian in contravention of sub-Section (1) or sub- Section (2) is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him.”

Furthermore, while discussing the scope of a minor’s right on attaining majority, the Bench observed that since the minors had avoided the sale executed by their father on attaining majority, it was 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.

The Court clarified that the 'conduct' must be that of the minor himself on attaining majority and that such repudiation should be unequivocal, “such as, by transferring the property to a third party”.

In the matter at hand, the Apex Court observed that “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.”

The Bench also took note that the respondent, in instituting the original suit in the plaint, had simply pleaded that she had purchased the property without verifying the title of the vendor or that if the vendor had a valid title over the property to transfer it in her favour.

Conclusion

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court and restored the decree of the Trial Court.

Cause Title: K.S. Shivappa v. K. Neelamma (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1195)

Appearances

Appellant: Senior Advocate G V Chandrashekar with Advocates N K Verma, Anjana Chandrashekar, AOR

Respondent: Advocates Sureshan P., AOR, Shivam Yadav and Deepak Joshi

Click here to read/download Judgment