SC Ruling on Minor’s Property Rights

Why in the News?

1. The Supreme Court ruled that a person who was a minor when a guardian sold their immovable property can, after attaining majority, repudiate (refuse/reject) that sale by clear conduct (for example, re-selling the land) instead of filing a court suit (Proceedings brought by one person against another in a civil court), if done within the law’s time limit.
2. The judgment resolves decades of confusion about remedies available to former minors and clarifies how voidable guardian transactions can be undone in practice.

Key Highlights

1. The case before the SC
   1. Original sale by the guardian (1971)
      1. A father, acting as natural guardian, sold two small plots owned by his three minor sons.
      2. He did this without seeking court permission, which the law requires for the sale of a minor’s immovable property.

• The buyers got title on the face of the sale deeds, and revenue records later showed transfers.

1. Sons attained majority and took action
   1. After the sons became adults, they sold the same plots to another buyer.
   2. This later sale raised legal disputes because the earlier buyers claimed valid titles.

• Courts had differing views on whether the sons’ later actions could undo the father’s sale.

1. Lower courts gave mixed rulings
   1. For one plot, a High Court held the sons’ later sale amounted to repudiation of the father’s sale and that judgment became final because it was not appealed.
   2. For the other plot, trial court agreed on repudiation but appellate courts reversed, saying a formal suit was necessary to cancel the guardian’s deed.

• This split of decisions reached the Supreme Court for final clarification.

1. Supreme Court examines the law and precedent
   1. The Court looked at the Indian Contract Act, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the Guardian and Wards Act, and a 1905 precedent (Abdul Rahman v. Sukhdayal Singh).
   2. It also considered the Limitation Act, which gives a time window for challenging voidable transactions after attaining majority.
2. The Court’s holding and practical tests
   1. The Supreme Court held that a guardian’s voidable sale can be set aside either by filing a suit within the limitation period or by unequivocal conduct that shows repudiation within the same period.
   2. Examples of such conduct include resale by the former minor, continued revenue entries in the minor’s name, non-possession by the first purchaser, and acting as owner.

• The Court emphasised that evidence must be clear, contemporaneous and within time to infer repudiation.

Key Terms

1. Voidable Transaction
   1. A voidable transaction is legally valid until the person entitled to avoid it chooses to cancel it.
   2. In guardianship law, transfers made without court permission are generally voidable at the instance of the minor.
   3. Once the entitled person repudiates within time, the transaction is treated as void from the beginning.
   4. Voidable differs from void; a void contract is null from the start and cannot be validated.
2. Limitation Act, 1963
   1. The Limitation Act, 1963 grants a person three years after attaining majority (at the age of 18 years generally) to set aside a property transfer made by their guardian.
   2. If the former minor acts within this period, courts will entertain repudiation by suit or by conduct.
   3. Delay beyond limitation can bar relief even when the underlying act was invalid.
3. Bona Fide Purchaser (for value without notice)
   1. A bona fide purchaser buys property in good faith, pays value, and lacks notice of any defect in title.
   2. Equity often protects such purchasers to maintain market stability and fairness.
   3. When a guardian’s transfer is later set aside, courts balance the minor’s right with the purchaser’s reliance, possibly awarding restitution or compensation.
   4. Possession, improvements and the timing of purchase affect protection accorded to such buyers.
   5. Clear titles, prompt repudiation and better records reduce disputes and safeguard innocent purchasers.

Implications of the SC Judgment

1. Stronger protection for heirs: Former minors have a practical, non-litigious way to recover property wrongly sold by guardians.
2. Less reliance on courts: In some cases, acting quickly (for example, reselling property) can restore rights without immediate litigation.
3. Market clarity: Buyers and registries will need better checks, since titles given by guardians without court sanction can later be undone.
4. Evidence importance: Maintaining revenue records and proving possession or resale within time gains legal weight.
5. Deterrence for guardians: The judgment discourages guardians from disposing of minor’s immovable property without court permission.

Challenges and Way Forward

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling makes the law around minor’s property more practical and humane. It recognises that a former minor can show rejection of a guardian’s unauthorised sale by clear action, not only by suing. To balance rights, the law must be supported by better records, public awareness, protections for innocent buyers, and clear judicial guidelines on what counts as unequivocal repudiation.