Repudiation by Conduct under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act: Supreme Court Clarifies Minors Need Not Sue to Avoid Guardian’s Unauthorized Transfer; Avoidance Relates Back; Plaintiff Must Prove Title Personally

Case: K.S. Shivappa v. Smt. K. Neelamma

Citation: 2025 INSC 1195

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Pankaj Mithal, J.; Prasanna B. Varale, J.

Date: 07 October 2025

Introduction

This appeal presented a recurring and practically significant question in Hindu minority property law: when a natural guardian sells a minor’s immovable property without prior court permission as mandated by Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMG Act), must the minor, upon attaining majority, file a suit to set aside that alienation, or can the minor avoid it by unequivocal conduct (for example, by selling the property to someone else)?

The facts involve two plots, Nos. 56 and 57, purchased in 1971 in the names of three minor brothers. Their father and natural guardian, Rudrappa, alienated both plots without obtaining permission of the District Court. Thereafter, when the surviving minors attained majority, they and their mother executed sale deeds in favour of the appellant, K.S. Shivappa, who consolidated both plots and constructed a house. Rival purchasers claiming through the guardian’s unauthorized sales (including the respondent, Smt. K. Neelamma for plot No. 57) litigated title.

While a separate High Court judgment regarding plot No. 56 attained finality in favour of Shivappa, the current appeal concerns only plot No. 57. The trial court dismissed Neelamma’s suit; the first appellate court and the High Court reversed. The Supreme Court was called upon to settle the legal necessity of a suit by the erstwhile minors and to assess whether the respondent had proved her own title at trial.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court and first appellate court judgments, and restored the trial court’s dismissal of the suit. The Court held:

• Alienations by a natural guardian without prior court permission under Section 8(2) HMG Act are voidable at the instance of the minor under Section 8(3).
• Section 8 does not prescribe the exclusive mode of avoidance. A minor, on attaining majority, can repudiate such a voidable transfer either by filing a suit within limitation or by unequivocal conduct—such as executing a fresh transfer of the same property—within the prescribed period.
• Once avoided, the legal effect “relates back” to the date of the impugned transaction; the transaction is treated as void ab initio for legal consequences.
• On facts, the surviving minors repudiated their father’s sale by transferring plot No. 57 to the appellant within time, with the transferees under the guardian’s sale never having been in possession; revenue records continued to bear the minors’ names.
• Independently, the plaintiff (Neelamma) failed to prove her title: she did not enter the witness box, did not prove her sale deed, and her power-of-attorney holder’s testimony on matters within her personal knowledge was inadmissible. The suit therefore failed on evidentiary grounds as well.

The Issue Framed

Whether, upon attaining majority, it is necessary for minors to file a suit within limitation to set aside the guardian’s unauthorized sale of their immovable property (plot No. 57) under Section 8(2) HMG Act, or whether such alienation may be validly repudiated by their unequivocal conduct within the prescribed period.

Statutory Framework

• Section 8(1), HMG Act: Natural guardian’s powers are circumscribed by acts necessary or proper for the benefit of the minor or the minor’s estate.
• Section 8(2), HMG Act: Prior permission of the court is a sine qua non for the natural guardian to mortgage, charge, sell, gift, exchange, or otherwise transfer the minor’s immovable property, or to lease it beyond specified durations.
• Section 8(3), HMG Act: Any disposal in contravention of Section 8(1) or (2) is voidable at the instance of the minor or persons claiming under him/her.
• Article 60, Limitation Act, 1963: Prescribes three years from the date of attaining majority for the ward to sue to set aside the transfer of immovable property by a guardian.

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Treatise support:
  • Travellyan on Minors (5th ed., p. 202): A voidable transaction can be repudiated by any act or omission intending to communicate repudiation; a subsequent transfer by the now-major ward suffices; a suit is not necessary.
  • Mulla’s Hindu Law (12th ed., p. 276): On voidable alienations (by analogy, e.g., reversioner’s choice), repudiation can occur without court intervention, including by pursuit of possession—illustrative of the broader principle that voidable acts need not inevitably be set aside by suit if unequivocally avoided by conduct.
• High Court authorities:
  • Abdul Rahman v. Sukhdayal Singh, 1905 SCC OnLine All 106: Minor’s subsequent sale upon attaining majority suffices to repudiate an earlier guardian-executed lease; suit is not indispensable.
  • G. Annamalai Pillai v. District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore, 1984 SCC OnLine Mad 185: Minor resisted recognition of a cultivating tenant based on a guardian’s lease in violation of Section 8; avoidance by conduct (resistance) held sufficient.
  • Chacko Mathew v. Ayyappan Kutty, 1961 SCC OnLine Ker 24: A person entitled to avoid a non-binding transaction may do so by an unequivocal act; suit is not always essential.
• Supreme Court authorities:
  • Madhegowda v. Ankegowda, (2002) 1 SCC 178: A minor on attaining majority can repudiate the transfer as and when occasion arises, including by a lawful transfer asserting title—a direct support for repudiation by conduct.
  • Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan, (2001) 6 SCC 163: While ultimately dismissing for limitation (late addition of relief to set aside), it does not mandate that the only mode of avoidance is by suit; rather, it addresses the consequence if a suit is in fact pursued.
  • Nangali Amma Bhavani Amma v. Gopalkrishnan Nair, (2004) 8 SCC 785: Confirms that transactions violating Section 8(2) are voidable, not void, and indicates that a suit must be filed within Article 60 when that mode is chosen; it does not exclude avoidance by conduct.
  • Murugan v. Kesava Gounder, (2019) 20 SCC 633: Relief of possession typically requires setting aside voidable alienations first; the case underscores procedural posture (when a minor sues for possession), not a universal bar on non-suit modes of avoidance.
  • G. Annamalai Pillai v. District Revenue Officer, (1993) 2 SCC 402: Authoritatively holds that once a voidable lease is avoided, the avoidance relates back to inception; no statutory rights accrue to the lessee; relies on Salmond’s Jurisprudence on the nature of voidable acts.
  • Privy Council and Madras High Court support on “whole-transaction dissent”: Satgur Prasad v. Mahant Har Narain Das, 1932 SCC OnLine PC 2; S.N.R. Sundara Rao & Sons v. CIT, 1956 SCC OnLine Mad 300—dissent avoids the transaction in toto, not merely possession.
  • Evidentiary authorities: Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217 (power-of-attorney holder cannot depose on matters within principal’s personal knowledge); Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 981 (reaffirming that a proxy cannot substitute for the plaintiff’s personal testimony on core issues).

Legal Reasoning

1. Nature and mode of avoidance under Section 8:

   Section 8(3) declares such alienations “voidable at the instance of the minor.” The statute is silent on the exclusive manner of avoidance. Drawing on established private law principles, treatises, and judicial precedents, the Court held that avoidance may validly occur by an unequivocal act of the former minor (e.g., executing a sale asserting title), without necessarily resorting to a cancellation suit, provided it is done within the prescribed period (referable to Article 60 when a suit is the chosen route).

2. Rationale for permitting repudiation by conduct:

   The Court articulated pragmatic reasons: minors may be unaware of the guardian’s alienation; the impugned transfer may not have been given effect to by delivery of possession; revenue entries may still reflect the minor’s name. Insisting on a suit in every case would elevate form over substance when unequivocal conduct suffices to communicate repudiation.

3. Relation-back doctrine:

   Relying on G. Annamalai Pillai (1993) and Salmond’s taxonomy (valid/void/voidable), the Court reaffirmed that once a voidable transaction is avoided, its legal efficacy evaporates ab initio (“relates back”). No derivative statutory or possessory rights can flow from it thereafter.

4. Application to facts:
   • The minors, after attaining majority, executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant—an unequivocal act of repudiation within time.
   • Transferees claiming under the guardian’s sale never obtained possession; revenue records remained in the minors’ names; the minors’ awareness of the guardian’s earlier sale was not established.
   • Consequently, the chain of title asserted by the respondent, premised on the guardian’s unauthorized sale, collapsed.
5. Independent evidentiary failure by the plaintiff:

   The plaintiff did not step into the witness box, did not prove her sale deed, and offered no pleadings or proof establishing her vendor’s title. Her power-of-attorney holder’s evidence on matters within her personal knowledge was inadmissible. Given that evidence cannot travel beyond pleadings, her title claim failed on first principles.

Impact and Prospective Significance

• Clarified mode of avoidance under Section 8(3):

  The Court has now authoritatively clarified that a minor need not invariably file a suit to avoid a voidable alienation by a natural guardian; unequivocal conduct suffices if undertaken within the limitation period. This reduces procedural rigidity and aligns with broader private law doctrine on voidable transactions.

• Due diligence in property transactions:

  Purchasers of property formerly belonging to minors must verify the existence of prior court permission under Section 8(2). Absence of permission is a red flag. Even bona fide purchasers risk losing title if the erstwhile minor repudiates within time by conduct. Reliance on possession or subsequent derivatives without this scrutiny is unsafe.

• Litigation posture and remedies:

  Parties claiming through a guardian’s unauthorized transfer should proactively seek declaratory relief if they become aware of the minor’s repudiation (e.g., a subsequent sale by the minor). In contrast, where the minor seeks possession through court, the minor may need to include a prayer to set aside the voidable transfer first (as highlighted in Murugan).

• Evidentiary discipline:

  Plaintiffs staking title must testify personally on matters within their knowledge, plead and prove their vendor’s title, and formally prove the conveyance. Power-of-attorney testimony cannot substitute the principal’s personal evidence on core facts. Courts may draw adverse inference when the plaintiff avoids the witness box.

• Relation-back effect:

  Upon avoidance, the impugned transfer is treated as void from inception. Third-party statutory claims predicated on the impugned transfer (e.g., cultivating tenant status in analogous contexts) cannot be sustained.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Void vs. voidable:

  A void act has no legal effect from the outset. A voidable act is initially effective but can be nullified at the option of an entitled party (here, the minor). Once avoided, it is treated as having been ineffective from the beginning (“relation back”).

• Repudiation by conduct:

  The now-major ward communicates avoidance without a suit by an unequivocal act inconsistent with the impugned transfer—such as executing a valid sale asserting ownership, resisting recognition of derivative rights under the impugned transfer, or otherwise clearly denying its legal effect.

• Section 8(2) permission:

  Prior court permission is mandatory for a natural guardian to alienate a minor’s immovable property. Absence of permission makes the transaction voidable at the minor’s instance.

• Article 60, Limitation Act:

  If the ward chooses to file a suit to set aside the guardian’s transfer, it must be within three years from attainment of majority. Where avoidance is by conduct, it must likewise be within the relevant period to be effective against competing claims.

• Power-of-attorney testimony:

  A holder of power of attorney cannot depose on facts within the principal’s personal knowledge. The principal (plaintiff) must testify on key issues such as title, execution of sale deed, and due diligence, unless the matters are within the agent’s own personal knowledge.

Practical Guidance

• For minors (now majors) or their transferees:
  • Unequivocal acts like a subsequent sale asserting title can constitute valid repudiation of the guardian’s unauthorized transfer; ensure it occurs within limitation and is well-documented.
  • If possession is required through court, include a prayer to set aside the voidable transfer before seeking possession, mindful of Murugan.
• For purchasers from guardians:
  • Insist on examining the prior court’s permission under Section 8(2); its absence imperils the transaction.
  • If you become aware of a ward’s repudiation by conduct, consider a timely declaratory action to crystallize rights if any arguable equities exist.
• For plaintiffs asserting title in court:
  • Plead and prove your vendor’s title; file and prove your sale deed; step into the witness box. Do not rely solely on a power-of-attorney holder for matters of personal knowledge.
  • Ensure that evidence stays within the scope of pleadings; courts will discard evidence beyond the pleadings.

What This Judgment Does Not Say

• It does not hold that a suit is never required. Where the ward seeks judicial relief such as cancellation or possession, a suit (with appropriate reliefs and within limitation) may be necessary.
• It does not transform Section 8(2)-violative alienations into “void” transactions; they remain “voidable,” but once avoided (by suit or conduct), the law treats them as void ab initio.

Conclusion

K.S. Shivappa v. Smt. K. Neelamma settles a long-standing practical question: a minor, on attaining majority, is not compelled to file a suit to avoid a guardian’s unauthorized alienation under Section 8(2) HMG Act—unequivocal conduct, such as a subsequent sale asserting title within limitation, suffices. The Court also powerfully restates the “relation back” effect of avoided voidable transactions and reinforces evidentiary discipline: plaintiffs must personally prove their title; a power-of-attorney holder cannot substitute for the principal’s testimony on core issues.

The decision will guide transactional due diligence where minors’ properties are involved, sharpen litigation strategies concerning avoidance under Section 8(3), and serve as a cautionary note on the perils of relying on unauthorized guardian alienations. In combining doctrinal clarity with practical commonsense, the judgment significantly strengthens the protective framework around minors’ property while ensuring procedural efficiency and evidentiary rigor in civil trials.