The Supreme Court has clarified a crucial legal point: minors, upon reaching the age of majority, have the right to reject property sale agreements made by their guardians without court intervention. This means they don’t necessarily have to file a formal lawsuit to cancel such transactions.
The ruling, issued under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, by Justices Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale, establishes that if a minor, after becoming an adult, sells property previously sold by their guardian, this action itself serves as a valid repudiation of the earlier sale.
The court noted, “The disposal of any immovable property by a natural guardian without the court’s permission is voidable at the instance of the minor…the transfer which is voidable, can be repudiated by the minor on attaining majority by his action and not necessarily by the intervention of the court.” Repudiation can be made either explicitly, by filing a lawsuit, or implicitly, through actions like selling the property again.
This landmark judgment addresses a long-standing legal uncertainty. Previously, it wasn’t definitively clear whether minors were obligated to file a separate suit to cancel guardian-approved property sales made without court sanction. The Supreme Court’s decision now provides a clearer path for minors to exercise their property rights after coming of age.
The case originated from an appeal by K.S. Shivappa, who had purchased two plots in Davanagere, Karnataka, from minors after they had reached adulthood. The dispute involved a plot initially sold by the minors’ father and natural guardian, Rudrappa. Rudrappa had acquired two plots in 1971 for his three minor sons and subsequently sold them to different buyers without obtaining the required court permission. One plot went through two more transactions before Shivappa bought it in 1989 from the surviving sons, who were then adults. The other plot was sold by Rudrappa to Neelamma in 1993.
Shivappa developed the land after his purchase. However, Neelamma later sued him, claiming ownership of one of the plots. While the trial court ruled in Shivappa’s favor, stating the minors had effectively repudiated the original sale through their subsequent actions, the lower appellate court and the Karnataka High Court disagreed, insisting on a formal cancellation suit.
Overturning the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s ruling. It emphasized that a minor is not required to file a separate cancellation suit if their conduct clearly indicates repudiation of the guardian’s sale within the legally prescribed time limit.
The bench stated, “The law nowhere mandates that a voidable sale must be avoided only through a formal suit. Repudiation through unequivocal conduct is sufficient.” The court observed that in this instance, the minors had indeed transferred the property themselves shortly after attaining majority, and their names remained on revenue records, indicating a clear repudiation through action.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court highlighted that the onus was on the subsequent purchasers, not the minors, to seek legal recourse if they felt their rights were affected by the minors’ subsequent sale of the property.
The judgment also reiterated a key principle regarding testimony: a power-of-attorney holder cannot testify about matters within the principal’s personal knowledge, emphasizing that “proxies cannot substitute personal testimony.” The court found fault with Neelamma for not testifying herself and instead relying on her power-of-attorney holder.
The court concluded that since Neelamma failed to prove her sale deed or her vendor’s valid ownership, no legitimate title had passed to her. Consequently, the trial court’s decree in favor of Shivappa was upheld, and Neelamma’s suit was dismissed.