Supreme Court restores trial court decree, holds minors can repudiate voidable sale by conduct without filing suit

Case Name: K.S. Shivappa v. K. Neelamma
Date of Judgment: October 07, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1195, Civil Appeal No. 11342 of 2013
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Held: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of K.S. Shivappa, set aside the judgments of the High Court and First Appellate Court, and restored the trial court decree. It held that a sale of a minor’s property by a guardian without court permission is voidable and can be repudiated by the minor on attaining majority not only by instituting a suit but also by conduct, such as executing a subsequent sale within the limitation period. The Court clarified that such repudiation makes the earlier transaction void ab initio and that purchasers from the guardian acquire no valid title.

Summary: The dispute concerned two plots in Davanagere (Nos. 56 and 57) purchased in the names of three minors. Their father and natural guardian, Rudrappa, sold both plots in the 1970s without court permission. These sales were later challenged when the surviving minors, on attaining majority, executed fresh sale deeds in favour of K.S. Shivappa. While plot No. 56 was litigated separately, the present appeal related to plot No. 57, which was also sold in 1993 to K. Neelamma through a subsequent purchaser. The trial court dismissed Neelamma’s suit, holding that her vendor had no valid title as the minors had repudiated the guardian’s sale by executing a fresh deed in Shivappa’s favour. The appellate courts reversed this finding, holding that since the minors had not filed a formal suit to cancel their guardian’s deed, the original transaction stood.

Before the Supreme Court, Shivappa argued that Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 makes such guardian sales voidable and that repudiation by conduct is legally sufficient. Neelamma’s claim was further weakened because she never entered the witness box to prove her title, relying instead on a power-of-attorney holder. The Court relied on authorities including Abdul Rahman v. Sukhdayal Singh, G. Annamalai Pillai v. District Revenue Officer, and Madhegowda v. Ankegowda to reaffirm that voidable transactions can be avoided either by suit or by unequivocal conduct.

Decision: The Supreme Court held that the minors had validly repudiated their guardian’s unauthorized sale by subsequently transferring the property to Shivappa within the limitation period. It ruled that Neelamma derived no title since her vendor had none to convey, and her failure to testify herself further undermined her case. Accordingly, the Court restored the trial court decree dismissing her suit, set aside the judgments of the High Court and First Appellate Court, and allowed the appeal without costs.