• The decision does not dilute the three‑year limitation under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for a ward to set aside the guardian’s transfer after majority. Rather, it clarifies that avoidance may be expressed either by filing suit or by unequivocal conduct within time. Where the minor is out of possession and seeks recovery, courts have required cancellation relief as a predicate to possession; the present ruling preserves that remedial structure but recognizes conduct‑based repudiation as legally efficacious in the right fact matrix depending on the particulars of each case. For registered dispositions, documentation and possession facts will still influence whether a suit is required to perfect remedies.

• In Maharashtra markets, especially in family conveyances, redevelopment, slum rehabilitation and peri‑urban lands, chains of title routinely feature transfers by natural guardians, de facto guardians, or a Karta implicating a minor’s share. The judgment heightens two opposing risks:

• • For later bona fide purchasers from the now‑major child: if that later sale is within limitation and possession/revenue records favour the child, the earlier transferee’s chain may be questionable without a cancellation decree.
  • For buyers and lenders under a historic guardian transfer: titles resting on a guardian’s unsanctioned disposition may remain defeasible until the minor affirms or the limitation window closes without repudiation.

However, needless to say, the above will depend on the particular facts of each case.

• Diligence Essentials

Few pointers for any person to ensure during the process of title due diligence carried out by legal practitioners in order to neutralize HMGA risks are as follows:

• • Scrutinize capacity and consent in every historical transfer. Examine whether any transferor was a natural guardian acting for a minor; if yes, verify existence (or absence) of court permission under HMGA read with the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
  • Track limitation windows. Establish dates of birth and majority for affected children; diarize the Article 60 three‑year period. If the window remains open, treat the title as defeasible unless affirmed.
  • Align documentary trails with possession and revenue records. Cross‑check 7/12 extracts/khata extracts and patta records (as applicable in the relevant State), property cards, index II, encumbrance certificates and assessment records. Continuous entries in the minor’s name, and absence of possession with the earlier transferee, strengthen the case for conduct‑based avoidance.
  • Distinguish undivided HUF interests from separate minor property. HMGA Section 8 constraints do not apply to a minor’s undivided coparcenary interest alienated by a competent Karta acting for legal necessity; do not conflate these categories. Demand proof of legal necessity and family benefit if a Karta sale is invoked.
  • Verify society and planning interfaces in Maharashtra. For flats and redevelopment in Maharashtra, check housing society resolutions, transfer permissions, and whether any minor’s interest was implicated in consents or consideration under MOFA/MahaRERA frameworks.

• Drafting for Risk Allocation: Sale, Joint-Development and Redevelopment Documents

While the judgment empowers precise contractual safeguards. For agreements, conveyances and joint development agreements, one should consider:

• • Representations and warranties. Require affirmative statements that no minor’s separate property or minor’s share has been transferred without requisite court permission; if minors exist, disclose details of permissions or limitation status.
  • Bring‑down conditions precedent. Condition completion on production of court permission orders for any guardian transfers, or evidence that limitation has expired without repudiation; where the minor has since attained majority, require a ratification/confirmation deed.
  • Tailored indemnities. Craft survival indemnities covering losses from HMGA non‑compliance or subsequent avoidance by now‑major children. Provide escrow or holdbacks sized to the risk horizon until limitation elapses.
  • Affirmation deeds and joinders. Obtain confirmatory deeds from all now‑major children whose interests were touched, expressly affirming past transfers; for ongoing projects, include them as consenting parties.
  • Title insurance riders. Where available, procure title insurance endorsements specifically addressing HMGA Section 8 exposures; align policy exclusions with your representation/indemnity package.
  • Possession and notice management. Document actual possession, disclosures to counterparties, and public notices where appropriate to mitigate future factual contest on knowledge and possession.

• Lender Considerations: Underwriting and Remedies

Credit committees and counsel should reflect the ruling in financing structures:

• • Enhanced title diligence. Flag any guardian‑executed transfer without a court order as a high‑risk exception; require curatives or ratifications before disbursement.
  • Covenants and events of default. Include covenants against acknowledging competing claims by historical transferees; treat any assertion of avoidance within limitation as a potential default if it clouds collateral.
  • Valuation haircuts and reserves. Apply haircuts and create specific reserves where curatives are pending or limitation windows remain open.
  • Security package tuning. Demand additional security or guarantees when HMGA risk cannot be fully cured prior to first disbursement; align intercreditor terms to prioritize proceeds if title fails.
  • Enforcement readiness. Map the possibility of litigation in the event a now‑major child repudiates: if the borrower’s chain relies on a guardian transfer, the lender should be prepared to support prompt declaratory relief or settlements.

• Developers and Investors: Structuring Family Deals and Redevelopment

On the sponsor side, the judgment is both a tool and a warning:

• • refer court‑sanctioned guardian transfers. Where separate minor property must be dealt with, invest early in obtaining court permission; it is slower but immunizes future challenge.
  • Time transactions around limitation. If your acquisition relies on a historic guardian transfer, either run a curative plan (affirmations) or stage payments until the Article 60 window closes.
  • In redevelopment and SRA contexts. Audit consent/consideration flows to ensure no minor’s separate interest is compromised without sanction; where families hold tenements, gather guardian permissions or secure post‑majority affirmations before critical project milestones.
  • Disclosure discipline. In marketing (including RERA filings), disclose curatives and risk mitigants to avoid misrepresentation exposure.

• For parties defending a later sale by now‑major children, the decision supports early dispositive relief if repudiation occurred within time and the earlier transferee never held possession. Conversely, parties claiming under a guardian’s unsanctioned transfer should promptly seek declaratory protection if they learn of a post‑majority sale by the minors. In evidentiary terms, ensure the real party in interest deposes; reliance on a power of attorney holder for matters within personal knowledge is fraught and has been treated as inadequate.

• In light of the foregoing, it is critical to ensure that enhanced title diligence is undertaken along with proper risk assessment in order to protect subsequent transferees from protracted litigation.

Footnote

[1] 2025 INSC 1195

[2] “The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court, (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of the minor;…”

This article was originally published in Lexology on 10 December 2025 Co-written by: Bhoumick Vaidya, Partner; Asmita Hegde, Senior Associate. Click here for original article.

Read Less-