The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has held that a sale of a minor’s immovable property by a natural guardian without prior court permission, which is a voidable transaction, can be repudiated by the minor upon attaining majority through unequivocal conduct, and it is not mandatory for the minor to file a suit to have the sale set aside. The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale delivered the judgment in the case of K. S. Shivappa v. Smt. K. Neelamma, allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court’s order.
Background of the Case
The dispute centered on a property, plot No. 57, which was originally purchased in 1971 by one Rudrappa in the name of his three minor sons, making them joint owners. On December 13, 1971, Rudrappa, acting as the natural guardian, sold this plot to Krishnoji Rao via a registered sale deed without obtaining the necessary permission from a court as required by law. Subsequently, on February 17, 1993, Krishnoji Rao sold the same plot to Smt. K. Neelamma.
Meanwhile, after the surviving two minor sons (one having passed away) attained the age of majority, they, along with their mother, sold plot No. 57 to K. S. Shivappa through a registered sale deed. This led to a dispute when Smt. K. Neelamma, the plaintiff, filed Original Suit No. 76/1997 against K.S. Shivappa seeking possession and other reliefs.
The Trial Court dismissed Smt. Neelamma’s suit on February 14, 2003, holding that the initial sale by the father-guardian was voidable and had been validly repudiated by the minors when they sold the property to Shivappa upon attaining majority. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, holding that the minors were required to challenge the earlier sale deed in court. The High Court, in its judgment dated March 19, 2013, upheld the First Appellate Court’s view, reasoning that since no suit for cancellation was filed by the minors, the original sale had attained finality. Aggrieved, K.S. Shivappa appealed to the Supreme Court.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court framed the central question of law as: “whether it is necessary for the minors to have filed a suit upon attaining majority within the prescribed time period, to set aside the earlier sale deed executed by their natural guardian… or such a sale deed could be repudiated through their conduct within three years of attaining majority.”
The Court analyzed Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. It noted that sub-section (2) explicitly prohibits a natural guardian from selling any part of a minor’s immovable property without the “previous permission of the court.” Sub-section (3) states that any disposal of property in contravention of this rule is “voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him.”
The judgment, authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal, observed that while the Act makes such transactions voidable, it “nowhere categorically provide the manner in which such a transaction… would be a voidable.” The Court reasoned that a minor could repudiate such a transaction either expressly by filing a suit or impliedly through conduct, such as transferring the property to another person upon reaching majority.
Citing legal texts, including Travellyan’s “on Minors” and Mulla’s “Hindu Law,” the Court affirmed that a voidable transaction can be repudiated by an act of the late minor, and “It is not necessary that he should bring a suit.”
The bench relied on its previous decision in Madhegowda vs Ankegowda, where it was held:
“The minor, on attaining majority, can repudiate the transfer in any manner as and when occasion for it arises. After attaining majority if he/she transfers his/her interest in the property in a lawful manner asserting his/her title to the same that is sufficient to show that the minor has repudiated the transfer made by the ‘de facto guardian/manager’.”
The Court also referred to G. Annamalai Pillai vs District Revenue Officer, which established that when a voidable transaction is avoided, it becomes void ab initio (from the beginning), and the avoidance “relates back to the making of it.”
Concluding on this issue, the Supreme Court held:
“…it can safely be concluded that a voidable transaction executed by the guardian of the minor can be repudiated and ignored by the minor within time on attaining majority either by instituting a suit for setting aside the voidable transaction or by repudiating the same by his unequivocal conduct.”
In the present case, the sale of the property by the erstwhile minors to K.S. Shivappa upon attaining majority was deemed a sufficient act of repudiation.
Plaintiff’s Failure to Testify
The Court found a second, independent reason to rule in favour of the appellant. It was noted that the original plaintiff, Smt. K. Neelamma, “had not entered the witness box to prove her plaint case or to assert her title over the suit property.” Instead, her power-of-attorney holder testified.
The Court reiterated the established legal principle, citing Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd., that a power-of-attorney holder cannot depose on facts that are within the personal knowledge of the principal. The Court observed, “The testimony of such a witness i.e. a power-of-attorney holder is inadmissible with regard to the facts within the personal knowledge of the plaintiff who has failed to enter the witness box.”
Decision
Based on these two primary findings—that the minors had validly repudiated the guardian’s sale by their conduct, and that the plaintiff had failed to prove her case by not testifying personally—the Supreme Court concluded that no valid title was ever transferred to Smt. K. Neelamma’s predecessor-in-title, Krishnoji Rao.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by K.S. Shivappa was allowed. The judgments of the High Court and the First Appellate Court were set aside, and the original Trial Court’s decree dismissing the suit was restored.
