Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Property Transfers by Guardians: Minors Can Repudiate Without Court Intervention

October 22, 2025

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment settling a long-standing ambiguity in property law concerning minors’ rights over property sales executed by their guardians without prior court approval. The decision, pronounced by a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice PB Varale, establishes that minors, upon attaining majority, are not required to move the court to cancel such transactions — repudiation through their actions or conduct is sufficient under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

Case Background: The Dispute Over Two Plots in Karnataka

The judgment arose from an appeal filed by KS Shivappa, who purchased two adjoining plots in Davanagere, Karnataka, from two brothers after they attained majority. These plots were originally purchased in 1971 by their father and natural guardian, Rudrappa, in the names of his minor sons. Soon after, Rudrappa sold both plots without obtaining the mandatory court permission required under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

Years later, after attaining majority, the sons sold both plots to Shivappa in 1989. One of these plots had been resold multiple times, ultimately reaching a woman named Neelamma, who later filed a suit claiming ownership.

The Legal Journey: Conflicting Judicial Opinions

The trial court initially ruled in favour of Shivappa, observing that Rudrappa’s sale was voidable, and the minors had effectively repudiated it by selling the property themselves upon reaching majority.

However, the Karnataka High Court overturned this verdict, holding that the minors were required to file a formal suit for cancellation of their father’s sale deed before transferring the property. The High Court ruled that without such a judicial cancellation, the subsequent sale to Shivappa was invalid.

Shivappa then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s interpretation and seeking restoration of the trial court’s findings.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling and restored the trial court’s judgment, emphasizing that:

Repudiation by Conduct Is Valid:
The court held that minors, upon attaining majority, can repudiate a sale executed by their guardian without court permission through explicit or implied conduct, such as reselling the property. Filing a separate cancellation suit is not mandatory.

“The disposal of any immovable property by a natural guardian without the court’s permission is voidable at the instance of the minor… and can be repudiated by the minor on attaining majority by his action and not necessarily by the intervention of the court,” the bench stated.
No Statutory Mandate for Filing a Suit:
The law does not mandate that a voidable transaction must be annulled only through a formal court suit. If the conduct of the minor clearly indicates repudiation — such as transferring or possessing the property — it is deemed sufficient.
Burden on Subsequent Purchasers:
The Supreme Court clarified that it is the subsequent purchaser who bears the burden of seeking legal remedy if they believe their rights are affected by the minor’s repudiation, not the minor who seeks to reclaim the property.
Failure to Prove Ownership:
Neelamma, the respondent, was faulted for failing to prove her ownership. The court noted that her power-of-attorney holder could not testify on matters within her personal knowledge, reaffirming established precedents such as Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd. and Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

Legal Basis: Statutes and Constitutional Provisions

1. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956

Section 8(1): A natural guardian cannot, without the court’s permission, transfer or sell a minor’s immovable property.
Section 8(2): Any such disposal without permission is voidable, not void.
Section 8(3): The transaction can be challenged by the minor after attaining majority.

2. Indian Contract Act, 1872

Section 11: A minor is not competent to contract. However, the guardian’s unauthorized act is not binding and can be repudiated once the minor attains majority.

3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 106: The burden of proving facts within personal knowledge lies on the person asserting them. This applied to Neelamma, who failed to substantiate her claim of ownership.

4. Constitutional Provisions

Article 300A: Protects the right to property, ensuring no person is deprived of property except by authority of law.
Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law, ensuring fair treatment in civil disputes.

Judicial Precedents Considered

The court relied on earlier rulings, including:

Smt. Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath (1971): A guardian’s transfer without permission is voidable at the minor’s instance.
Karam Singh v. Smt. Pratap Kaur (1993): The minor can repudiate a transaction through conduct after attaining majority.
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd. (2005): Power-of-attorney holders cannot depose on behalf of principals regarding matters of personal knowledge.

These precedents reinforced the position that while guardians act in fiduciary capacity, their unauthorized transactions are subject to the minor’s discretion once they attain majority.

Outcome and Significance

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the primacy of minors’ property rights and clarifies that they need not undergo an additional procedural burden to reclaim ownership of property wrongfully transferred during their minority.

By restoring the trial court’s decree in favour of KS Shivappa, the bench concluded:

“The sale deed executed by the father of the minors was repudiated by the minors within time on attaining majority; therefore, no valid right or title stood transferred to Krishnoji Rao or to Neelamma.”

Conclusion

This judgment is a significant step toward protecting minors’ property rights and streamlining property law interpretation under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. It eliminates unnecessary procedural hurdles by recognizing repudiation through conduct, ensuring that the law adapts to practicality and justice.

The ruling also reinforces accountability in property dealings involving guardians, reminding buyers to ensure that transactions involving minors’ property are backed by proper judicial sanction.