In K.S. Shivappa vs Smt. K. Neelamma decided on 7 October 2025, the Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s decree holding that it is not mandatory for a minor to file a suit to repudiate a voidable transaction executed by a guardian; conduct suffices. The Supreme Court considered whether a minor must always file a suit on attaining majority to repudiate a voidable transaction executed by a guardian or whether repudiation could occur through conduct.
Rudrappa, the father and guardian of three minor sons, purchased two plots in 1971. Without court permission, he sold Plot No. 56 to S.I. Bidari (later transferred to B.T. Jayadevamma) and Plot No. 57 to Krishnoji Rao (later transferred to K. Neelamma). After attaining majority, the surviving minors, with their mother, sold both plots to K.S. Shivappa. Jayadevamma’s suit over Plot 56 was dismissed by the High Court, holding the minors’ sale effectively repudiated their father’s earlier deed. For Plot 57, the Trial Court favored Shivappa, but the High Court reversed, ruling Neelamma had valid title since no suit had been filed to challenge the original sale. Shivappa then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Section 8(2) and (3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act make it clear that any transfer of a minor’s property by a guardian without court permission is voidable at the instance of the minor. Legal texts (Travellyan, Mulla) and case law (Abdul Rahman v. Sukhdayal Singh, G. Annamalai Pillai v. District Revenue Officer, Chacko Mathew v. Ayyappan Kutty) confirm that such voidable transactions can be repudiated either by filing a suit or through unequivocal conduct, such as selling the property after attaining majority.
In the present case, the minors had repudiated the sale of Plot No. 57 by transferring it to Shivappa after attaining majority. Neelamma had failed to prove her title or verify that Krishnoji Rao had valid ownership. Her Power-of-Attorney witness could not fill this evidentiary gap. Therefore, Shivappa had valid rights over Plot No. 57. A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale allowed the appeal.
Takeaway: A minor can repudiate a sale made by their guardian without court permission upon attaining majority, either by acting on the property (like selling it) or filing a suit. If no challenge is made, subsequent purchasers relying on the original sale may acquire valid title. Essentially, action or inaction by the minor determines whether a voidable transaction is upheld or canceled.
