Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-011342-011342 – 2013 |
| Diary Number | 25484/2013 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on methods of repudiating voidable transactions by minors |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent that voidable transactions may be repudiated by conduct |
| Type of Law | Civil – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, property law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a sale transaction voidable under Section 8(2) of the Act must be set aside by filing a suit upon majority or can be repudiated by conduct within the limitation period |
| Ratio Decidendi |
A disposal of a minor’s immovable property by a guardian without court permission is voidable under Section 8(3) of the Act. Such a transaction can be avoided either by instituting a suit for cancellation or by unequivocal conduct on attaining majority (e.g., transferring the property). Authoritative texts (Travellyan, Mulla) and precedents (Abdul Rahman v. Sukhdayal Singh; G. Annamalai Pillai v. DRO) confirm that conduct-based repudiation suffices. Once repudiated, the transaction is void ab initio. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
A guardian sold two plots of minor sons without court permission. On attaining majority, the surviving minors transferred both plots to K.S. Shivappa, thereby repudiating the guardian’s sales. Plot 56 dispute was resolved in Shivappa’s favour. In plot 57, purchaser Neelamma obtained a sale from an intervening vendor; Trial Court allowed Shivappa’s plea of repudiation by conduct; High Court reversed on ground no suit for cancellation; Supreme Court confined the appeal to plot 57. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and High Courts when dealing with voidable minor’s property transactions |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirmed that a minor’s voidable property transaction under Section 8(2) of the Act can be repudiated by conduct (e.g., by re-selling) without filing a cancellation suit.
- Reinforced that once repudiation occurs, the original transaction is void ab initio and no statutory rights vest in the guardian’s grantee.
- Purchasers relying on a guardian’s voidable sale must, upon knowledge of repudiation, institute appropriate proceedings (for cancellation or declaration) rather than assume title.
- Highlighted inadmissibility of power-of-attorney evidence to prove principal’s personal knowledge or title when principal does not testify.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act prohibits a guardian from transferring minor’s immovable property without court permission; Section 8(3) makes such transfers voidable at the minor’s instance.
- The Act does not prescribe the exclusive mode of avoidance; both a suit for cancellation or an unequivocal act of conduct (e.g., fresh sale) on attaining majority suffice to repudiate.
- Textual authorities (Travellyan; Mulla) support conduct-based repudiation without judicial intervention.
- Precedents (Abdul Rahman; G. Annamalai Pillai; Chacko Mathew) held that a minor’s post-majority act avoiding the prior transaction renders it void ab initio.
- Supreme Court applied these principles: minors’ sale to Shivappa upon majority effected repudiation; no suit for cancellation was mandatory.
- Absence of purchaser’s possession and minors’ non-awareness of guardian’s sale bolstered that conduct-based repudiation was sufficient.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (K.S. Shivappa):
- Guardian’s sale of minor’s plots without court permission was voidable under Section 8(3).
- Minors, on attaining majority, repudiated by transferring the property to petitioner within limitation.
- No mandate in Act requiring a suit for cancellation; conduct alone suffices to avoid.
Respondent (K. Neelamma):
- Minors failed to challenge the guardian’s sale by suit upon majority; transaction attained finality.
- Plaintiff’s title derived from guardian’s grantee was unassailed in time.
- Lacked pleadings and proof of vendor’s valid title; reliance on power-of-attorney evidence was impermissible.
Factual Background
Mahadevappa’s minor sons jointly owned two plots. Their father, acting as guardian, sold both plots without court permission. Upon attaining majority, two surviving sons and their mother sold each plot to K.S. Shivappa. B.T. Jayadevamma contested plot 56 (settled in Shivappa’s favour). Smt. K. Neelamma, as purchaser of plot 57 from an intervening vendor, sued Shivappa. Trial Court upheld conduct-based repudiation; High Court reversed for absence of cancellation suit. Supreme Court heard only plot 57 dispute.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 8(2), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act: guardian must secure prior court permission before transferring minor’s immovable property.
- Section 8(3): any such disposal without permission is voidable at the minor’s instance.
- The Act does not specify that avoidance must be by suit alone; implied that repudiation by conduct is permissible and effective ab initio.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed