Minors’ Property Right:
In K.S. Shivappa vs Smt. K. Neelamma Case 2025, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that after attaining majority, a person can repudiate a property sale made by their guardian without court sanction, either by filing a suit or through clear conduct, such as reselling the property.
- The father, acting as the natural guardian, sold plots bought in the names of his minor sons without obtaining district court approval as required by law.
- After attaining majority, the sons resold the properties, resulting in legal disputes between the original buyers and the subsequent purchasers.
- The laws on property acquired by minors through their guardians are determined through 3 pieces of legislation:
- Indian Contract Act, 1872: Only persons of majority age and sound mind are competent to contract. Contracts by minors are void ab initio—invalid from the beginning.
- A valid contract requires consent, a lawful object, legal consideration, and competent parties—the last being crucial when a minor is represented by a guardian.
- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956: Natural guardians must act for the minor’s benefit. Guardians cannot sell, mortgage, or lease a minor’s immovable property without court permission.
- Any sale without permission is voidable at the instance of the minor.
- Guardian and Wards Act, 1890: A guardian cannot dispose of a ward’s property without the court’s sanction.
- Limitation Act, 1963: It grants a person 3 years after attaining majority to challenge or set aside such a property transfer.
Current SC Ruling:
- The Court held that a person can reject a voidable transaction either by instituting a suit for setting it aside or by repudiating it through unequivocal conduct.
- The act of reselling the property to a new buyer after attaining majority, within the three-year limitation period, constitutes a valid repudiation of the original, unauthorised sale.
- If the plaintiff refuses to testify, their proxy cannot replace their personal testimony on key matters known only to the plaintiff. Hence, a Power-of-Attorney holder cannot testify in place of the principal.
- The ruling strengthens minor protection under Indian property law, reaffirming the precedent set in Abdul Rahman v. Sukhdayal Singh Case, 1905 and specifying a three-year limitation period for such repudiation under the Limitation Act, 1963.
