Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling on the interpretation of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, held that a minor, upon attaining majority, can repudiate a voidable sale of his property made by a natural guardian without court permission by conduct — not necessarily by filing a separate civil suit.
A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale set aside the Karnataka High Court and First Appellate Court judgments, restoring the Trial Court’s decree that had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming ownership of a plot purchased through a voidable transaction.
The Court declared:
“It is not always necessary for a minor to institute a suit for cancellation of a voidable sale transaction executed by his guardian on attaining majority. Such a transaction can be avoided or repudiated by his conduct.”
Facts
The dispute revolved around two adjacent plots—Nos. 56 and 57—originally owned by Mahadevappa, which were purchased in 1971 by Rudrappa in the names of his three minor sons. Acting as the natural guardian, Rudrappa sold these plots to third parties without obtaining the court’s permission, in violation of Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
Plot No. 56 was sold to S.I. Bidari, then to B.T. Jayadevamma, while Plot No. 57 was sold to Krishnoji Rao and later to K. Neelamma (plaintiff). Upon attaining majority, the surviving two minors, along with their mother, executed fresh sale deeds in 1989 transferring both plots to K.S. Shivappa (defendant). Shivappa combined the two plots and constructed a house.
Subsequently, Neelamma (who had purchased Plot No. 57 in 1993 from Krishnoji Rao) filed a suit for declaration, possession, and injunction, alleging unlawful interference by Shivappa. The Trial Court dismissed her suit, but the First Appellate Court and High Court reversed the decision, holding that since the minors never challenged the guardian’s sale through a civil suit, their subsequent sale to Shivappa was invalid. Shivappa approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether a minor, on attaining majority, must necessarily file a civil suit to set aside a voidable sale executed by the natural guardian without court permission.
- Whether repudiation of a voidable transaction by conduct—such as executing a fresh sale—can be treated as valid avoidance under Section 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
- Whether the plaintiff, who derived title through a chain of voidable transactions, had valid ownership rights.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant (Shivappa) argued that the minors had repudiated the illegal sale made by their father upon attaining majority by executing a fresh sale deed in his favour within the limitation period prescribed under Article 60 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the earlier sale to Krishnoji Rao, and subsequently to Neelamma, was invalid.
It was contended that filing a suit is not the only mode of repudiation under Section 8(3) of the Act; repudiation can also be by conduct, as recognized in classical legal texts and case law. Shivappa’s counsel submitted that both the High Court and First Appellate Court erred in assuming that the absence of a cancellation suit rendered the minors’ later transfer ineffective.
Additionally, the plaintiff failed to establish her vendor’s valid title. She neither entered the witness box nor proved her sale deed or her predecessor’s ownership. Relying on Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd. (2005) 2 SCC 217, the appellant argued that a power-of-attorney holder’s testimony cannot substitute the principal’s evidence on matters of personal knowledge.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent (plaintiff) contended that the guardian’s sale, even if voidable, could not be ignored without a formal decree of cancellation, and since no such suit was filed by the minors upon attaining majority, the sale in favour of her vendor attained finality.
She relied on the chain of title starting from Rudrappa’s sale to Krishnoji Rao and her own registered sale deed of 1993, arguing that the transfer was valid in the absence of judicial repudiation. The plaintiff further claimed that Section 8(3) does not explicitly permit avoidance by conduct and that statutory limitation required a declaratory suit.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court conducted an exhaustive analysis of Section 8(2) and (3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which restricts a guardian from selling a minor’s property without prior court permission and declares such transactions “voidable at the instance of the minor.”
The Court noted that the statute does not specify the method of repudiation, leaving it open for judicial interpretation. Drawing upon scholarly commentaries and earlier rulings, it held that a minor can avoid such a transaction by conduct as well as by filing a suit, depending on the circumstances.
The Court cited Travellyan’s Law of Minors (5th Ed., p. 202) and Mulla’s Hindu Law (12th Ed., p. 276), both of which recognize repudiation by conduct—for instance, by executing a fresh sale or transferring property that had earlier been unlawfully alienated by the guardian.
Precedent Analysis
- Abdul Rahman v. Sukhdayal Singh (1905 SCC OnLine All 106) — Held that a minor’s act of selling property upon attaining majority amounts to repudiation of a lease or sale made by his guardian.
- G. Annamalai Pillai v. District Revenue Officer (1993) 2 SCC 402 — Ruled that once a voidable lease executed by a guardian is repudiated by the minor, the lease becomes void ab initio.
- Chacko Mathew v. Ayyappan Kutty (1961 SCC OnLine Ker 24) — Recognized that unequivocal acts of repudiation can avoid a voidable transaction.
- Madhegowda v. Ankegowda (2002) 1 SCC 178) — Affirmed that the minor can repudiate a transfer through any lawful act asserting ownership.
- Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan (2001) 6 SCC 163) — Cited but distinguished; the Court clarified that while the relief for cancellation after limitation was barred, it did not mandate a suit as the only mode of repudiation.
- Murugan v. Kesava Gounder (2019) 20 SCC 633) — Held that possession cannot be claimed without setting aside a voidable sale but did not overrule the concept of repudiation by conduct.
- Nangali Amma Bhavani Amma v. Gopalkrishnan Nair (2004) 8 SCC 785) — Recognized that transactions violating Section 8(2) are voidable and can be avoided within limitation, though did not exclude conduct-based repudiation.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench emphasized that Section 8(3) provides flexibility: repudiation can be express (through suit) or implied (through conduct). When minors, upon attaining majority, executed new sale deeds in favour of Shivappa within the limitation period, their action constituted valid repudiation of the earlier guardian’s sales.
“The avoidance of a voidable agreement relates back to the date of transaction. On repudiation, the transaction is deemed void ab initio.”
The Court noted that Neelamma derived no title because her vendor (Krishnoji Rao) acquired none—Rudrappa’s unauthorized sale was voidable, and once repudiated, the title reverted to the minors.
Additionally, the Court criticized Neelamma’s failure to enter the witness box or prove her title deed. Her power-of-attorney holder’s testimony was inadmissible regarding facts within her personal knowledge. Consequently, her claim lacked both legal and evidentiary foundation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and First Appellate Court, restoring the Trial Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit. It held that:
- The minors had validly repudiated their guardian’s unauthorized sale by executing a fresh sale deed after attaining majority.
- Filing of a civil suit was not mandatory for such repudiation.
- The plaintiff failed to prove her vendor’s title or her own lawful ownership.
“A voidable transaction executed by the guardian of the minor can be repudiated by the minor within time on attaining majority either by instituting a suit or by his unequivocal conduct.”
The appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Implications
This ruling clarifies a critical ambiguity in Hindu guardianship law — repudiation of unauthorized transfers can occur through conduct, not only judicial action. It protects minors from procedural hardships and ensures that substantive justice prevails over form.
It also reinforces that purchasers of minor’s property without court sanction do so at their own risk, as their titles remain precarious until affirmed by the minor after majority. The decision will significantly impact property transactions involving guardianship and minor’s assets, streamlining interpretation under Section 8(3).
FAQs
1. Is a civil suit mandatory to repudiate a voidable sale of a minor’s property?
No. The Supreme Court held that a minor can repudiate such a sale by conduct, such as executing a new sale deed upon attaining majority, without filing a separate suit.
2. What happens when a voidable transaction is repudiated?
Once repudiated, the transaction becomes void ab initio, meaning it is treated as if it never existed and no rights accrue to the transferee.
3. Can a power-of-attorney holder testify in place of the plaintiff?
No. A power-of-attorney holder cannot depose about facts within the personal knowledge of the principal, especially concerning ownership or intention.