Introduction
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S. Shivappa v. K. Neelamma (2025 INSC 1195) held that a minor need not necessarily file a suit to repudiate a transaction made by a natural guardian without the Court’s permission under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The Court clarified that such a transaction can also be avoided through the minor’s conduct, for instance by transferring or dealing with the property in their own name after attaining majority.

Background
The dispute arose from two small plots of land that had been purchased in the names of three minor sons. Their father, acting as natural guardian, sold these plots without obtaining the District Court’s approval, which is mandatory under Section 8(2) of the Act. Years later, once the sons attained majority, they and their mother executed a sale deed in favour of K.S. Shivappa, effectively rejecting their father’s earlier unauthorised sale. When subsequent purchasers of the same property approached the civil court, they argued that since the sons had not filed any formal suit to cancel the previous sale, it still remained valid. The Trial Court disagreed and held that the minors had clearly repudiated the earlier transaction through their conduct. However, both the First Appellate Court and the High Court took the opposite view and held that only a suit could set aside such a sale. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Findings
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that while the guardian’s sale was voidable because it was executed without the Court’s permission, there is nothing in the law that requires the minor to approach the Court to avoid it. A minor, on attaining majority, may repudiate the transaction either expressly by filing a suit or impliedly by conduct. Selling the same property in their own right, resisting an adverse claim, or otherwise asserting ownership can itself amount to clear repudiation. The Court referred to authoritative texts such as Travellyan on Minors and Mulla’s Hindu Law and relied on earlier judgments including Madhegowda v. Ankegowda (2002) 1 SCC 178, Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan (2001) 6 SCC 163 and G. Annamalai Pillai v. District Revenue Officer 1984 SCC Online Mad 185. It reaffirmed that once a voidable transaction is avoided, it becomes void from the beginning as though it never existed. The Court further held that if the minors had sold the property within the limitation period after attaining majority, that act by itself amounted to repudiation. A separate civil suit for cancellation was therefore not necessary.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the First Appellate Court, and restored the Trial Court’s decree in favour of K.S. Shivappa. It concluded that It is not always necessary for a minor to institute a suit for cancellation of a voidable sale transaction executed by his guardian. Such a transaction can be avoided or repudiated by the minor expressly by filing a suit for the cancellation of such a transaction or impliedly by his conduct namely by transferring the property himself on attaining the majority within the time prescribed. 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 and secondly, the transaction may not have been given effect to. After attaining majority if he/she transfers his/her interest in the property in a lawful manner asserting his/her title, that is sufficient to show that the minor has repudiated the transfer.

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar