Voidable sale deeds by guardians must be timely repudiated by minors upon attaining majority to retain rights.

The petitioners are vendees who purchased various land parcels in Village Sindhora, District Varanasi, via sale deeds executed between 1955 and 1961 by the family members of the late Brij Mohan

Adya Shanker and Kripa Shanker (sons of Vishwanath) filed objections under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (UPCH Act), claiming the property was ancestral and that sale deeds executed by their mother (Chamela Devi) during their minority were illegal

The Consolidation Officer (CO) distributed shares in favor of the sons

On appeal, the Settlement Officer (SOC) reversed this, holding that the purchasers had perfected title through adverse possession and that the sons failed to challenge the voidable sale deeds within three years of attaining majority

However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC), in revision, restored the CO’s order, ruling that the father/guardian could not sell the minors’ shares without legal necessity

1. Whether the share of a deceased brother (Shivnandan) devolved to the surviving brother (Harinandan) in an individual capacity or as ancestral property

2. Whether the sale deeds executed by the mother (Chamela Devi) qua the shares of her minor sons (Adya and Kripa Shanker) were void or voidable, and what was the effect of the sons failing to challenge them upon attaining majority

The Court applied the principle of ancestral succession under revenue law, noting that entries in the Khatauni (revenue records) after the death of a co-sharer without issue indicate inheritance of ancestral property rather than personal acquisition

Regarding the rights of minors, the Court relied on Article 60 of the Limitation Act and the principle that a transaction executed by a guardian is voidable, not void

The Court further applied the doctrine established in K.S. Shivappa v. Smt. K. Neelamma (2025), holding that a voidable transaction executed by a guardian must be repudiated by the minor within the limitation period upon attaining majority, either through litigation or unequivocal conduct

The Court affirmed the DDC’s finding that the land was "ancestral" because records showed Harinandan inherited the share of his predeceased brother Shivnandan and nephew Sitaram in his capacity as a legal heir, not as an individual acquisition

However, the Court disagreed with the DDC’s conclusion regarding the sale deeds executed by the mother. While the DDC viewed the sales as void for lack of "legal necessity," the Court clarified that such sales are "voidable"

The Court observed that Adya and Kripa Shanker attained majority in 1962 and 1965 respectively, but failed to take effective steps to repudiate the deeds or challenge them in court within the prescribed time

Their failure to act, coupled with the dismissal of a previous civil suit in 1972, meant they had relinquished their rights by conduct and lapse of time

The High Court set aside the findings of the DDC (Revisional Authority) which had invalidated the sale deeds; the writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Consolidation Officer to redistribute shares in accordance with the High Court's finding that the sale deeds in favor of the petitioners are valid