IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Voidable transaction executed by guardian of minor can be repudiated and ignored by minor within time on attaining majority either by instituting suit for setting aside voidable transaction or by repudiating the same by his unequivocal conduct.
(2) Power-of-Attorney holder is not entitled to depose in place of Principal.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. One Mahadevappa, son of Waderahalli Basappa of Village Shamanur was the owner of sites measuring 42 ft. x 30 ft. and 41 ½ ft. x 30 ft., which were carved out of Survey Nos. 113/2 and 114/1. These revenue sites were described as plots Nos. 56 and 57 respectively. The aforesaid plots Nos. 56 and 57 were purchased by Rudrappa on 15.09.1971, in the name of his three minor sons, namely, Maharudrappa, Basavaraj and Mungeshappa. Thus, all the three minors became the joint owners of the aforesaid two plots.

2. Rudrappa, the father and the natural guardian of the three minors, transferred one of the two plots i.e. plot No. 56 in favour of one S.I. Bidari by a registered sale deed without the court’s permission. The said S.I. Bidari further transferred the said plot i.e. plot No. 56 to one Smt. B.T. Jayadevamma vide sale deed dated 31.01.1983. Subsequently, when the two surviving minors (as one of them died) attained majority, they along with their mother transferred the aforesaid plot in favour of one K.S. Shivappa vide sale deed dated 03.11.1989. Acting in furtherance of the above registered sale deed, K.S. Shivappa started working on the said land due to which Smt. B.T. Jayadevamma thought there was interference with her rights on the said land.

3. As a result, Smt. B.T. Jayadevamma filed an Original Suit No. 120/1997 in the Court of II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Davanagere for declaration, possession and permanent injunction. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of B.T. Jayadevamma holding that the minors on attaining majority failed to file a suit to get the sale deed executed by their father repudiated. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, K.S. Shivappa filed Regular First Appeal No. 1522/2003 before the High Court. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court was reversed, holding that the sale deed of the said plot executed by the father of the minors was voidable at the instance of the minors and that the minors can repudiate the same within the prescribed time, upon attaining majority either by filing a suit or by unequivocal conduct, such as, by transferring the property to a third party. Thus, the transfer of the property by the minors, on attaining majority within the period of limitation, amounted to repudiation of the contract of sale of the property executed by their father without seeking the permission of the District Judge.

4. In a similar fashion, as above, Rudrappa, the father and natural guardian of the minors, transferred the second plot, i.e. plot No. 57 through a registered sale deed dated 13.12.1971 in favour of one Krishnoji Rao without taking any permission from the court. The said purchaser Krishnoji Rao vide Sale Deed dated 17.02.1993 transferred the said plot in favour of Smt. K. Neelamma. On the other hand, the surviving minors on attaining majority, along with their mother within the prescribed time sold the property, i.e., plot No. 57 to K. S. Shivappa, the purchaser of the earlier plot No.56. The said Shivappa clubbed both the properties, i.e. plot Nos. 56 and 57 and built a house to live therein.

5. In the above background of the facts and circumstances, Smt. K. Neelamma, the purchaser of plot No. 57 who purchased it from Krishnoji Rao, as a plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 76/1997 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.), Davanagere against K.S. Shivappa. The said suit was dismissed on 14.02.2003 by the Trial Court holding that the sale deed under which the predecessor-in-title o