Minor’s Repudiation By Conduct Upheld; Court Holds Guardian’s Voidable Alienation Can Be Rescinded Without Suit

A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard an appeal concerning the validity of a sale of immovable property executed by a natural guardian without prior court permission and whether the transaction required a suit by the minor on attaining majority to be set aside. The appeal arose from competing claims over a village plot (No. 57) where the purchaser in title relied on a sale deed executed by the minors’ father, who acted as their natural guardian, without seeking the District Judge’s prior permission as mandated by law.

The Court allowed the appeal, held that a voidable transaction executed by a guardian could be repudiated by the minor either by instituting a suit or by unequivocal conduct on attaining majority, and restored the Trial Court decree in favour of the purchaser who acquired the minor’s interest after majority. The Court observed that “prior permission of the court is a sine qua non” for a guardian to transfer a minor’s immovable property and reiterated that “Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further recorded the legal consequence that avoidance “relates back to the date of the transaction,” so that an avoided transaction was to be treated as void ab initio.

Background One Mahadevappa owned two revenue sites (plots Nos. 56 and 57). In 1971 he conveyed each to purchasers in registered deeds executed by Rudrappa in the names of his three minor sons; the father acted as natural guardian in those transactions and did not obtain prior court permission. Plot No. 56 passed through subsequent transfers and was later acquired by K.S. Shivappa; that title dispute stood finally resolved and was not before the Court. Plot No. 57 was conveyed by the guardian to a purchaser (Krishnoji Rao) and later to Smt. K. Neelamma, who sued K.S. Shivappa for declaration, possession and injunction after Shivappa, having purchased the minors’ interest on attaining majority, occupied and developed the two plots together.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of Shivappa, finding that the minors had repudiated the guardian’s sale by transferring the property on attaining majority; the First Appellate Court and the High Court reversed, holding that because the minors had not instituted a suit to cancel the guardian’s sale after attaining majority, the earlier sale had attained finality. On further appeal, the Supreme Court examined Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and authorities including Madhegowda v. Ankegowda and G. Annamalai Pillai, and allowed the appeal. The Court held that a guardian’s alienation in contravention of Section 8(2) was voidable at the instance of the minor; such a transaction could be avoided either by filing a suit or by “unequivocal act repudiating it,” and avoidance related back to the original transaction, rendering no statutory rights in favour of the transferee. The Court also noted evidentiary shortcomings in the plaintiff’s case: Smt. Neelamma did not lead oral testimony to prove her vendor’s title and relied on a power-of-attorney witness who could not substitute for the plaintiff’s personal evidence. The result was that the High Court and first appellate court orders were set aside, the Trial Court decree restoring Shivappa’s title was reinstated, and the suit was decreed in his favour. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 11342 of 2013 Case Title: K. S. Shivappa v. Smt. K. Neelamma Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the reported judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the reported judgment