In a detailed ruling delivered on October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India clarified an important question under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The Court held that minors, on attaining majority, are not strictly required to file a civil suit to repudiate property transactions executed by their natural guardians without court permission. Instead, they can also repudiate such transactions through clear conduct like selling the property themselves.
Background
The dispute arose from a decades-old property tussle in Davanagere, Karnataka. Two plots, numbered 56 and 57, originally belonged to minors after being purchased in their names back in 1971. Their father Rudrappa, acting as natural guardian, sold the plots without prior court approval. Later, when the surviving minors became adults, they themselves executed fresh sale deeds in favour of K.S. Shivappa.
This sparked conflicting claims. On one side stood Shivappa, who had built a house on the combined plots. On the other side was Smt. K. Neelamma, who claimed ownership of plot No. 57 through a chain of transfers dating back to Rudrappa’s questionable sale.
The case went through multiple rounds first the trial court siding with Shivappa, then the appellate court and High Court overturning that view, declaring Neelamma as the rightful owner. It finally reached the Supreme Court.
Court's Observations
The bench, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, examined whether law requires minors to file a suit to set aside such voidable transactions.
Justice Mithal noted,
"A natural guardian has no authority to sell a minor’s immovable property without the court's prior permission. Such a transfer is voidable at the option of the minor."
The Court drew upon earlier precedents and scholarly texts. It cited decisions where minors had successfully avoided transactions not by suing, but through acts like selling or resisting claims over the property. The bench explained that this flexibility is necessary, since minors may not always be aware of illegal sales made during their childhood.
"It is not always necessary for a minor to institute a suit," the bench remarked. "Repudiation can be shown by conduct, such as entering into a new sale within limitation after attaining majority."
Another significant point was Neelamma's failure to personally testify. The Court found that she had not proved her title deed, nor had she established that her vendor had a valid title in the first place. A power-of-attorney holder, the bench emphasized, could not substitute for the plaintiff’s personal testimony on matters within her own knowledge.
Decision
Concluding that the minors had validly repudiated the earlier voidable sale through their later transaction with Shivappa, the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s decision.
The bench categorically ruled that Neelamma had no legal title to plot No. 57. As a result, her suit was dismissed, and the High Court’s judgment in her favour was overturned.
The appeal filed by Shivappa was thus allowed, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: K.S. Shivappa v. Smt. K. Neelamma
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 11342 of 2013
