SC Upholds Minors' Property Right

• 01 Nov 2025

Source: IE

Why in News?

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.

What does the Law Say about Selling a Minor's Property?

• Background of the Case: 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.
• Legal Framework: 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: 
  • Two Modes of Repudiation: 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.
  • Conduct as a Valid Tool: 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.
  • Power of Attorney: 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.
• Significance: 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.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment significantly strengthens property rights of minors. By validating repudiation through conduct, it simplifies the process for adults to reclaim property sold without authorization, ensuring the guardian's fiduciary duty is upheld and reducing the burden of formal litigation on the aggrieved party.

Drishti Mains Question:

Q. Discuss how the K.S. Shivappa v. K. Neelamma (2025) judgment strengthens protection of a minor’s property rights and its implications for guardianship law

FAQs

1. What is the legal status of a contract entered into by a minor?

Contracts by minors are void ab initio (invalid from the outset) as per the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

2. What is the time limit for a person to challenge a property transfer made by their guardian?

The Limitation Act, 1963, provides a 3-year period from the date of attaining majority to challenge such a transfer.

3. Which precedent did the Supreme Court reaffirm with this judgment?

The Court reaffirmed the principle established in the 1905 case of Abdul Rahman v. Sukhdayal Singh, which recognized repudiation by conduct

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Questions (PYQs) 

Prelims 

Q. What is the position of the Right to Property in India? (2021)

(a) Legal right available to citizens only 

(b) Legal right available to any person 

(c) Fundamental Right available to citizens only 

(d) Neither Fundamental Right nor legal right 

Ans: (b) 

Q. ‘Economic Justice’ as one of the objectives of the Indian Constitution has been provided in (2013) 

(a) the Preamble and the Fundamental Rights 

(b) the Preamble and the Directive Principles of State Policy 

(c) the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy 

(d) None of the above 

Ans: (b)

---

Mains

Q. What was held in the Coelho case? In this context, can you say that judicial review is of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution? (2016)

Q. Discuss the role of land reforms in agriculture development. Identify the factors that were responsible for the success of land reforms in India. (2016)

Q. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has come into effect from 1st January, 2014. What are the key issues which would get addressed with the Act in place? What implications would it have on industrialization and agriculture in India? (2014)