K. S. Shivappa v. K. Neelamma 2025 INSC 1195 - S.8 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Section 8 - A transaction in relation to the property of a minor executed in contravention of the express provisions of Section 8 of the Act is voidable at the option of the minor or any person claiming under him and such an option to avoid a transaction of the above nature can be by initiating a law suit or may be by conduct. (Para 22) It is not always necessary for a minor to institute a suit for cancellation of a voidable sale transaction executed by his guardian on attaining majority within the limitation provided and that such a transaction can be avoided or repudiated by his conduct.(Para 32-34) 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. (Para 14)
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Section 8 -prior permission of the court is a sine qua non for a guardian of a minor to transfer the property of the minor in any of the manners provided under sub-Section (2) of Section 8 of the Act. (Para 12)
Evidence - Evidence either ocular or documentary cannot travel beyond the pleadings. (Para 38)
Evidence -Where the plaintiff refuses to testify, the proxies cannot substitute his personal testimony on key issues within the personal knowledge of the plaintiff- With regard to the facts within the personal knowledge of the plaintiff who has failed to enter the witness box (Para 39)
Case Info
Case Name: K. S. Shivappa v. Smt. K. Neelamma
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1195
- Coram: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
- Judgment Date: October 07, 2025
- Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
- Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 11342 of 2013
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 8(1), 8(2), 8(3)
- Limitation Act, 1963, Article 60
- Principles from Salmond’s Jurisprudence (12th ed., p. 341)
Caselaws and Citations
- Abdul Rahman v. Sukhdayal Singh, 1905 SCC OnLine All 106
- G. Annamalai Pillai v. District Revenue Officer, (1993) 2 SCC 402
- G. Annamalai Pillai v. The District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore, 1984 SCC OnLine Mad 185
- Chacko Mathew v. Ayyappan Kutty, 1961 SCC OnLine Ker 241
- Madhegowda v. Ankegowda, (2002) 1 SCC 178
- Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan, (2001) 6 SCC 163
- Nangali Amma Bhavani Amma v. Gopalkrishnan Nair, (2004) 8 SCC 785
- Murugan v. Kesava Gounder, (2019) 20 SCC 633
- Satgur Prasad v. Mahant Har Narain Das, 1932 SCC OnLine PC 2
- S. N. R. Sundara Rao & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, 1956 SCC OnLine Mad 300
- Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217
- Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 981

#SupremeCourt holds that it is not always necessary for a minor to institute a suit for cancellation of a voidable sale transaction executed by his guardian on attaining majority within the limitation provided.
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) October 7, 2025
Such a transaction can be avoided or repudiated by his conduct. https://t.co/9ZEV4RjzQZ pic.twitter.com/sFNy06Mvsz