Case Details
K.S. Shivappa vs. Smt. K. Neelamma (Civil Appeal No. 11342 of 2013)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judgment Date: 7 October 2025
Judges: Justice Pankaj Mithal & Justice Prasanna B. Varale
“Minor Can Repudiate Guardian’s Sale Without Filing a Case – Supreme Court (2025)”
Case Analysis
- One Mahadevappa owned two plots — No. 56 & 57 — in Village Shamanur.
- In 1971, he sold both plots to Rudrappa in the names of his three minor sons — Maharudrappa, Basavaraj, and Mungeshappa.
- Thus, the minors became joint owners of the plots.
Plot No. 56
- Rudrappa (the father & guardian) sold Plot 56 to S.I. Bidari without court permission (which is required under law when selling a minor’s property).
- Later, the plot changed hands and was sold to Smt. B.T. Jayadevamma.
- When the surviving minors became majors, they sold the same plot to K.S. Shivappa in 1989.
- Jayadevamma filed a suit claiming ownership — the Trial Court favored her, but the High Court reversed it, saying minors can repudiate (cancel) such illegal sales after attaining majority.
Plot No. 57
- Rudrappa again sold this plot (57) without court permission to Krishnoji Rao, who later sold it to Smt. K. Neelamma in 1993.
- The minors (after becoming majors) sold the same plot to K.S. Shivappa and he built a house combining both plots.
Court Proceedings
- Trial Court (2003):
Dismissed Neelamma’s case — said the sale by Rudrappa was voidable, and since minors sold it after majority, they had repudiated the earlier illegal sale. - First Appeal (2005):
Allowed — held that since minors didn’t file a formal case cancelling their father’s sale, the earlier sale became final. - High Court (2013):
Confirmed First Appeal — said Neelamma was the valid owner. - Supreme Court (2025):
Reversed the High Court — ruled in favor of K.S. Shivappa.
Key Legal Question
Is it compulsory for minors to file a court case after attaining majority to cancel an illegal sale made by their guardian, or can they cancel it through their actions (like reselling the property)?
Supreme Court’s Decision
- The Court referred to Section 8(2) & (3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which says:
- A guardian cannot sell a minor’s property without court permission.
- Such sale is voidable (not void) — the minor can cancel it after becoming major.
- The Court held:
- A minor need not always file a suit to cancel the sale.
- He/she can repudiate by conduct — for example, by selling the property again or clearly denying the earlier sale.
- Once repudiated, the earlier sale becomes void from the beginning (void ab initio).
Court’s Observations
- The minors never knew about the sale by their father and continued to be shown as owners in revenue records.
- Their act of selling the property to Shivappa after majority was enough to cancel the earlier illegal sale.
- Neelamma failed to prove her title — she didn’t appear in court or prove that her seller (Krishnoji Rao) had valid ownership.
- Hence, Neelamma’s claim fails.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
The Trial Court’s decision restored.
High Court and First Appellate judgments set aside.
No order as to costs.
Key Legal Principle (Takeaway)
“A sale made by a guardian without court permission under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act is voidable, not void — and a minor can cancel it either by filing a case or by clear conduct, such as selling the property after majority.”
