Minor Can Avoid Voidable Sale By Action, Repudiation by Conduct is Legally Sufficient - Suit is Not the Sole Avenue: Supreme Court

“A voidable transaction executed by the guardian of the minor can be repudiated and ignored by the minor within time on attaining majority either by instituting a suit… or by unequivocal conduct.” - On October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India clarifying the legal position on the repudiation of property sales made by a guardian without court permission under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that a minor, on attaining majority, can repudiate such a transaction not only through a suit but also by unequivocal conduct such as executing a fresh sale deed.

The Court ruled, “A voidable transaction executed by the guardian of the minor can be repudiated and ignored by the minor within time on attaining majority either by instituting a suit… or by unequivocal conduct.” This interpretation overruled the High Court’s decision, which had held that failure to file a suit rendered the earlier sale final.

This ruling significantly expands the legal remedies available to minors and settles a long-standing ambiguity in the interpretation of Section 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.

“Transaction Voidable at Minor’s Option—Not Void—But Can Be Rendered Void Ab Initio Upon Repudiation”

Repudiation by Sale within Limitation Relates Back to Date of Original Transaction, Rendering it Non-Existent in Law

The dispute concerned two plots of land purchased by Rudrappa in the names of his three minor sons in 1971. Without court permission, Rudrappa sold both plots—Plot No. 56 and Plot No. 57. After the minors attained majority, they executed fresh sale deeds for both plots in favour of K.S. Shivappa. The purchasers from the original guardian, including Smt. K. Neelamma, challenged Shivappa’s title.

The main contention in the case was whether minors are legally bound to file a suit to repudiate the sale made by their guardian without court approval, or if a subsequent act of transfer within the limitation period would be legally sufficient.

Rejecting the mandatory requirement of a formal suit, the Court observed, “Such voidable transaction may be repudiated by the minor on attaining majority either by filing a suit or by unequivocal conduct, such as executing a fresh sale deed.”

The Court held that under Section 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, a sale executed by a guardian without prior court permission is not void but voidable at the minor’s option, and once the minor repudiates it, “the agreement not only ceases to have any efficacy but is deemed to have been void ab initio.”

“Three Years from Majority is the Only Limitation—How You Repudiate is Flexible”: Clarification Under Article 60 of Limitation Act

The Court highlighted that Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a three-year window from the date of attaining majority within which the minor must act. However, it expressly ruled that repudiation need not be through a court suit alone.

Referring to treatises and prior jurisprudence, the Bench cited Travellyan’s Minors (5th Ed.) and Mulla’s Hindu Law, both of which recognize that repudiation may be conveyed by conduct. Quoting Travellyan, the Court noted, “A transaction which is voidable at the instance of the minor may be repudiated by any act or omission… it is not necessary that he should bring a suit.”

The Court further observed, “The avoidance of such a transaction by conduct appears to be permissible for two reasons. First, at times the minor may not be aware of such a transaction… Secondly, the transaction may not have been given effect to… giving an impression that the property is intact in the hands of the minor.”

“Repudiation by Transfer of Title is a Valid Legal Act of Avoidance”: Apex Court Applies Consistent Legal Doctrine from Prior Rulings

The Court reinforced its view by relying on prior decisions, particularly Madhegowda v. Ankegowda (2002) 1 SCC 178, in which it had held, “The minor, on attaining majority, can repudiate the transfer in any manner as and when occasion for it arises… by transferring his/her interest in the property in a lawful manner asserting his/her title.”

Similarly, in G. Annamalai Pillai v. District Revenue Officer, (1993) 2 SCC 402, the Court had ruled that once the minor avoids the transaction, “it becomes void from its very inception… and no statutory rights accrue in favour of the other party.” That principle was endorsed again in this judgment.

While the Court distinguished decisions such as Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan, Murugan v. Kesava Gounder, and Nangali Amma Bhavani Amma, it noted that none of these cases established that a formal suit is the only permissible way to repudiate a voidable sale. They simply addressed circumstances where suits were or were not filed, without precluding other methods of repudiation.

“Proxies Cannot Substitute Plaintiff in Court”: High Court’s Finding on Title Defeated by Lack of Plaintiff’s Testimony

An additional but crucial ground on which the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim was procedural. Smt. Neelamma, the original plaintiff, did not enter the witness box, and instead relied on her power-of-attorney holder, whose knowledge of the facts was not personal.

The Court held, “The plaintiff failed to enter the witness box… Her power-of-attorney holder could not prove matters within her personal knowledge.”

Citing Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217 and the recent Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 981, the Court reaffirmed that a power-of-attorney holder cannot depose on matters within the personal knowledge of the principal, especially on the question of valid title.

The Court noted that Neelamma had not pleaded or proved that her vendor, Krishnoji Rao, had valid title—thus fatally undermining her claim.

In light of the above, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and the First Appellate Court, and restored the decree of the Trial Court, which had dismissed Neelamma’s suit. The Court observed that the sale made by the minors within limitation amounted to a valid repudiation of the earlier voidable sale, and Neelamma derived no title from her vendor.

“It was not necessary for them to have instituted the suit for the cancellation of such a sale,” the Court held conclusively, placing the burden on the subsequent purchasers to seek declaration of title, if any.

Date of Decision: October 07, 2025