Supreme Court: Minor Can Repudiate Guardian’s Sale by Conduct; Suit for Cancellation Not Always Mandatory:

Supreme Court: Minor Can Repudiate Guardian’s Sale by Conduct; Suit for Cancellation Not Always Mandatory The dispute arose from two plots originally owned by three minor brothers, whose father and natural guardian, sold them without obtaining the court’s permission as required under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956. One of these plots (No. 57) later became the subject of litigation between the appellant, K.S. Shivappa, and the respondent, Smt. K. Neelamma. Upon attaining majority, the minors sold both plots to the appellant, who constructed a house on the land. The respondent, who purchased Plot No. 57 through an intermediate buyer, filed a civil suit claiming ownership. The Trial Court dismissed her suit, holding that the original sale by the father was voidable and had been lawfully repudiated by the minors through their subsequent sale to the appellant. However, the First Appellate Court and the High Court reversed this view, holding that since the minors had not filed a suit to set aside the earlier sale deed, their later sale was invalid. The appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging those findings. Issue Raised: Whether minors, on attaining majority, must necessarily file a suit to set aside an unauthorised sale executed by their guardian, or whether such a transaction can be repudiated by conduct within the limitation period. SC's Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the Trial Court’s decree, holding that a sale of a minor’s property by a guardian without prior court permission is voidable at the instance of the minor under Section 8(3) of the 1956 Act. The Court clarified that such a transaction can be repudiated either by filing a suit or by unequivocal conduct, such as entering into a fresh sale after attaining majority. Any transfer of a minor’s property without such permission is voidable at the option of the minor. The Court cited legal authorities and precedents to hold that avoidance can be inferred from the minor’s conduct, including subsequent transfer or refusal to recognise the earlier transaction. Once repudiated, such a transaction becomes void ab initio, and no right can accrue to the transferee. The respondent failed to enter the witness box or establish a valid title through her vendor, whose own title was defective. The Court set aside the High Court and First Appellate Court orders, restoring the Trial Court’s judgment in favour of the appellant, finding that the minors had validly repudiated their father’s sale by transferring the property themselves within the limitation period. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below