TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of cases........................................................................................................................i
List of statutes......................................................................................................................ii
List of abbreviations...........................................................................................................iii
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
a) 1.1 Research Methodology............................................................................................1
b) 1.2 Research Plan...........................................................................................................2
Aliention under Dayabhaga School.....................................................................................3
Father as an Alienator..........................................................................................................4
Karta’s powers of Alienation...............................................................................................5
c) 4.1. Hunooman Persaud v. Mussmat Babooee.............................................................5
Benefit to Estate...................................................................................................................7
Legal Necessity....................................................................................................................8
Indispensable Duties............................................................................................................9
Right of Coparcener to Alienate his Share..........................................................................9
Legal Recourse in case of Invalid Alienation....................................................................11
Burden of Proof..................................................................................................................12
Alienee’s Rights and Remedies.........................................................................................13
Conclusion and Suggestions..............................................................................................15
bibliography........................................................................................................................iv
 TABLE OF CASES
Cases
Babronda v. Anna 10
Bachoo v. Mankore Bai 4
Balmukund v. Kamla Wati 7
Bhimji v . Hanumant Rao 10
Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad 4
Deen Dayal v. Jaidep 11
Gallamudi v. Indian Overseas Bank 7
Gangi Reddi v. Tammi Reddi 9
Hari Singh v. Umrao 7
Hasmat v. Sundar 14
Hunooman Persaud v. Mussmat Babooee 5
Mahadevappa v. Chandabasappa 10
Narayan Pd v. Sarmam Singh 14
Padmanabh v. Abraham 14
Palaniappa v. Deivasikamony 7
Permanayakam v. Sivaramma 12
R. Raghubanshi Narain Singh v. Ambica Prasad 12
Ramkoomar v. Kishenkunkar 3
Sideshwar v . Bubheshwar 14
Subbarami v. Rammamma 4
Sunil Kumar v. Ram Prakash 12

i
 LIST OF STATUTES

The Indian Limitation Act,1908 12

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 5, 11

ii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

All ER All England Reporter
All Allahabad
Bom Bombay
Cal Calcutta
CrLJ Criminal law Journal
Del Delhi
HC High Court
Kant Karnataka
Mad Madras
P&H Punjab and Haryana
p. page
s. section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Ss. sections
v. versus

iii
 Introduction

Alienation can be defined as “it includes as any disposal by the father, karta,
coparcener or the sole surviving coparcener of a part or the whole of the joint family
property by any act or omission, voluntary or involuntary, intended to take part in present
or future”1
Thus it can be said that alienation has a very wide scope and application. The
distinguishing feature of this power is that it was traditionally given only to the father or
the karta and that, but the power itself is near autocratic as it allows them to sell, gift or
mortgage the whole joint family property without the consent of any coparcener, this is
why the ancient texts have specified several conditions which alone would justify such
acts of the manager. These conditions have changed over the centuries to keep in pace
with the changing conditions and the ancient rules have been modified by the Privy
Council in accordance with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. The
lack of any codified law as well the changing face of the commercial transactions a joint
family enters into these days have created many situations where even the jurists have
still not agreed upon the settled law and this constant situation of flux makes alienation a
very interesting study. The effort has been made to list all the varying viewpoint and
critically analyse them in the light of old traditions and newfound legal principles.
Alienation is of vast practical utility as it gives a way of using the joint family property
for the common use of the family and it is a classic example of the unique position of the
hindu joint family which is always ready to help its members in times of need and who
work together for common benefit.

1.1 Research Methodology

In the project titled “Alienation under Hindu Law” the researcher has used the
doctrinaire method of research. According to it the researcher has used the books and
journals available in the law library of Nalsar University of Law, Justice City,
Hyderabad.

1
. Hari Singh Gour,THE HINDU CODE,6th ed.1996,p.586.

1
1.2 Research Plan
For best understanding of the topic, the project has been divided into the
following headings-
Introduction-Giving a basic and general idea of alienation along with its unique
distinguishing features
Heading 1 – Dealing with the father’s power of alienation which are in fact wider than
that of the karta and which include the making gifts of affection and making alienations
for the payment of his antecedent debts.
Heading 2 – Dealing with the history of karta’s power of alienation, as it has been under
the Hindu laws.
Heading 3 – Dealing with the concept of benefit of estate elaborately along with relevant
case law.
Heading 4 – Dealing with the concept of legal necessity along with the relevant case law.
Heading 5 – Dealing with the concept of pious obligation especially as under the shastric
law.
Heading 6 – Dealing with the coparceners right to alienate his undivided share in the joint
family property, also the sole surviving coparcener’s right to alienate the joint property.
Heading 7 – Dealing with the legal recourses open to the non alienating members along
with alienee if they want to challenge an alienation made by the father or the karta.
Heading 8 – Dealing with the procedure in case of burden of proof.
Heading 9 – Dealing with the rights and remedies of the alienee.
Heading 10- Conclusion and Suggestions.

2
 Aliention under Dayabhaga School

Under Dayabhaga school, father is provided with the absolute powers regarding
alienation, i.e. he can alienate separate as well as ancestral property, including movable
and immovable on his wish. As the sons don’t get a right over the property by birth under
Dayabhaga school, father doesn’t need the consent of his sons for the purpose of
alienation.
Father enjoys an absolute power, which empowers him to alienate the property even
when there is no moral justifications. In Ramkoomar v. Kishenkunkar,2 the Sudder
court held that the gift by a father of his whole estate to a younger son, during the life of
the elder was valid though immoral, however the gift of whole ancestral landed property
was forbidden. Later in 1831, the Supreme Court of Bengal referring to the judges of
Sudder Dewanny returned the following certificate,
On mature consideration of the points referred to us, we are unanimously
of opinion that the only doctrine that can be held by the Sudder Dewanny
Adalat, consistently with the decisions of the court, and the customs and
usages of the people, is that a Hindu, who has sons, can sell, give or
pledge, without their consent immovable ancestral property, situated in
the province of Bengal, and that the consent of the sons, he can, by will,
prevent, alter or affect their succession to such property.3

2
. (1812) 2 SD 42 (52).
3
. Jugomohan v. Neemoo, Morton, 90; Motee Lal Mitterjeet 6 SD 73 (85)

3
 Father as an Alienator

A father possesses more power even than karta as there are situations in which
only the father has the authority to make alienation.The two cases are dealt with below-
Gifts of love and affection –
The father can make a gift of reasonable amount of the ancestral movable
property out of love and affection4 to the family members who are not entitled to any
share at the time of the partition. Even in the case of the coparcener, however the rule in
this case is that the value of the property gifted must be very small in comparison to the
entire movable property.5 Thus the gift of affection may be made to the daughter, wife or
even the son.
In the case of Subbarami v. Rammamma6 an important principle was laid down
that such gifts cannot be made by a will, since as soon as a coparcener dies, he loses his
interest in the joint property which he cannot subsequently alienate.
A classic example of such a gift came up before the Privy Council in the case of Bachoo
v. Mankore Bai7 - In this a gift made to the daughter of Rs.20000 was held to be valid as
the total value of the estate was 10-15 lakhs.
Father’s Debt-Father can alienate family property to pay his personal debts if the
following two conditions are fulfilled-
1 The debt is antecedent .
2 The debt should not be Avyavaharik i.e. for unethical or immoral purposes.
The above two rules though derived from ancient Mitakshara text was also laid down in
the case of Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad.8

4
. Mayne,HINDU LAW AND USAGE,15th ed. 2003,p.797.
5
. Mulla,HINDU LAW,17th ed.2000,p.331.
6
. (1920)43 Mad 824;supra n. 2 p.332.
7
. (1907)34 IA 107;supra n. 1 p.636.
8
. (1924) 51 IA 129;supra n. 3 p.318.

4
 Karta’s powers of Alienation
The modern law of alienation is completely based on the ancient texts with little
or no deviation from the basic rules given there. The modern law of alienation was settled
to a large extent in the landmark judgment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

4.1. Hunooman Persaud v. Mussmat Babooee9

In this case the alienation made by a widow for the interest of her minor son was
challenged, here the case was that of a mortgage but the lordships made it clear that the
same principles would be applicable even in the case of sale or gift and that too by any
member, father or karta. Here three conditions were stated in which the alienation would
be valid:-
1. In the case of a legal necessity. Corresponding to the ancient condition of Apatkale
2. For the benefit of the estate, similar to the concept of Kutumbharthe
3. For religious purposes i.e. Dharmarthe.
The Privy Council in its decision went on to lay many other principles which are
still relevant in deciding cases on invalid alienation:
The power of the manager for an infant heir to charge an estate not his
own is under the Hindu Law, a limited and qualified power. It can only be
exercised rightly in the case of need or for the benefit of the estate.
However where in particular instance, the charge is one that a prudent
owner would make in order to benefit the estate,the bona fide lender is not
affected by the precedent mismanagement of the estate. The actual
pressure on the estate, the danger to be averted, or the benefit to be
conferred upon it in the particular instance is the thing to be regarded ….
Their lordships think that the lender is bound to inquire into the
necessities for the loan and to satisfy himself as well as he can with
reference to the parties with whom he is dealing that the manager is
acting in a particular instance for the benefit of the estate. However they
think that if he does so inquire and acts honestly, the real existence of an

9
. (1856)6 MIA313;supra n. 3 p.370.

5
 alleged sufficient and reasonably credited necessity is not a condition
precedent to the validity of his charge and they do not think that under the
circumstances, he is bound to set the application of money.10
The above given text gives the boundaries of karta’s power inside which he can
alienate the joint property even without the consent of all the coparceners. Literally
translated it means “he has special powers of disposition (by mortgage, sale or gift ) of
family property in a season of distress (for debt), for the purposes and benefit of the
family (maintenance, education and marriages of members and other dependents) and
particularly for religious purposes( Shraddhas and the like)”
Therefore under the Mitakshara law the manager can validly make an alienation
only in three circumstances i.e. Apatkale(in times of distress),Kutumbarthe(benefit of the
family) and dharmarthe(religious purposes).Under Dayabhaga, the powers of the karta
are similar to that of the Mitakshara. However it differs in the powers of the father are
much wider as Dayabhaga says that the father has absolute power to dispose off all kinds
of ancestral property by sale, mortgage, gift, will or otherwise in the same way as he can
dispose off his separate property.11

10
. Ibid.
11
. Daya. II 28-31;supra n.7 p.594.

6
 Benefit to Estate

The courts have not given a set definition of this concept, undoubtedly so that it
can be suitably modified and expanded to include every act which might benefit the
family.
In the modern law the first exposition of the expression “for the benefit of the
estate” was found in the case of Palaniappa v. Deivasikamony.12
In this case the judges observed “ No indication is to be found in any of them(ancient
texts) as to what is, in this connection, the precise nature of things to be included under
the descriptions ‘benefit to the estate’ …. The preservation however of the estate from
extinction, the defence against hostile litigation affecting it, the protection of it or
portions from injury or deterioration by inundations, there and such like things would
obviously be benefits”
The Supreme Court later added its own observation as to what constitutes benefit, in the
case of Balmukund v. Kamla Wati.13
for the transaction to be regarded as for the benefit of the family it need
not be of a defensive character. Instead in each case the court must be
satisfied from the material before it, that it was in fact conferred or was
expected to confer benefit on family.
The below given illustrations will give an idea as to the cases where the courts have held
the alienation to be for benefit of the estate:-
In Hari Singh v. Umrao Singh14, when a land yielding no profit was sold and a land
yielding profit was purchased the transaction was held to be for benefit.
In Gallamudi v. Indian Overseas Bank15, when a alienation was made to carry out
renovations in the hotel which was a family business, it was held to be for benefit.

12
. (1917)44 IA 147;supra n. 3 p. 373.
13
. AIR 1964 SC 1385.
14
. AIR 1979 All. 65.
15
. AIR 1978 A.P. 37.

7
 Legal Necessity

Again as in the case of benefit of the estate, the courts have refrained from giving
a set definition to the concept of legal necessity so as not to reduce it onto watertight
compartment16. The concept of legal necessity is essentially one which may change and is
thus in a state of flux .
It can basically mean all acts done to fulfill the essential needs of the family
members and only those acts which are deemed necessary.17
The shastric condition on which the concept of legal necessity i.e. Apatkale
essentially means situations of distress and emergency like floods, famines, fire, wars etc.
however it has been recognized under the modern law that necessity may extend beyond
that. Thus it is now established that necessity should not be understood in the sense of
what is absolutely indispensable but what according to the notions of the joint hindu
family would be regarded as proper and reasonable.18
The following example would suitably illustrate the above stated principle-
Food shelter and clothing of the family members, marriage of the members of the
family including daughters( special duty), medical care of the members of the family,
defence of a family member involved in a serious criminal case, for the payment of debts
binding on the family, payment of government dues etc.

16
. Dr Paras Diwan,MODERN HINDU LAW,15th ed. 2003, p.302.
17
. Supra n. 2, p. 801.
18
. Supra n. 16.

8
 Indispensable Duties

The third ground upon which the authority of the managing member whether
father or any other karta to make an alienation of family property rests is where the
indispensable duties such as the obsequies of father and the like require it.
“and the like” may include many rituals and religious duties like sradha, upanayana, and
performance of necessary Sanskara19. In the case of the marriage of the members of the
family members it would come under the purview of both legal necessity as well as pious
obligation as it is the most essential sanskara.20
The major case in this regards is that of Gangi Reddi v. Tammi Reddi21
In this the Judicial Committee held that a dedication of a portion of the family
purpose of a religious charity may be validly by the karta without the consent of all the
coparceners, if the property allotted be small as compared to the total means of the
family. It also lays down the principle that the alienation should be made by the manager
inter vivos and not de futuro by will.

Right of Coparcener to Alienate his Share

19
. Supra n. 16, p. 302.
20
.T.V. Subbarao and Vijender Kumar, (rev.), GCV Subba Rao, FAMILY LAW IN INDIA,9th
ed.2006,p.77.
21
. (1927)54 IA 136 ;supra n. 2 p. 803.

9
 Sole Surviving Coparceners right to alienate-When joint family property passes
into the hands of the sole surviving coparcener,it assumes the character nearly of his
separate property, with the only duty on him being that of maintenance of the female
members (the widows) of the family.
Thus barring the share of the widows he can alienate the other property as his
separate property. However this is not valid if another coparcener is present in the womb
at the time of the alienation. but if the son is born subsequent to the transaction then he
cannot challenge the alienation.22
In case a widow adopts a child after the death of her husband, will such a child
challenge the alienation, i.e. can the doctrine of relation back be applied in such cases
The Mysore High Court in the case of Mahadevappa v. Chandabasappa 23held that such
a child can actually challenge the alienation made by the sole surviving coparcener as
he’ll have an interest in the joint family property
This is in contrast with the stance taken by the Bombay High Court in the cases of
24 25
Bhimji v. Hanumant Rao and Babronda v. Anna where it was held that a
subsequently adopted son cannot divest a sole surviving coparcener of his right over the
joint property and hence cannot challenge any alienation made by him.
Coparceners Right to Alienate His Undivided Share – Under the shastric law no
coparcener can dispose off his share without the express consent of the other coparceners.
Br (S.B.E.33p. 384 verse 94) says “whether kinsmen are joint or separate they are equal
as regards immovable property. Since a single one of them has no power in any case to
make a gift, sale or mortgage of it”26
Since the hindu sages laid great emphasis on payment of debts, the courts seized
this principle and started executing personal money decrees against the joint family
property.27
The law was settled in the case of Deen Dayal v. Jaidep28 where it was held that
“purchaser of an undivided interest at an execution sale during the life of the debtor of his
22
. Supra n. 16 p. 306.
23
. AIR 1965 Mys. 15.
24
. AIR 1950 Bom. 271.
25
. AIR 1968 Bom. 8.
26
. Supra n.7 p.595.
27
. Supra n. 2,p. 820.
28
. (1877)4 IA 247;supra n. 2 p. 821

10
separate debt acquires his interest in such property with the power of ascertaining it and
realizing it by partition”. The limitation to this rule is that such a decree should be passed
or has interest attached during his lifetime.29
As far as voluntary alienation is concerned there are several rules pertaining to
different states-Under all the sub schools of Mitakshara, alienation of undivided share is
not allowed unless it is consented upon by every coparcener.30
In the states of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Madras,a coparcener can
alienate his share even without the consent of the coparceners.31
But in the states of Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, such alienation cannot take
place unless it is for legal necessity or benefit of the coparcener.32
Under Dayabhaga school of law coparcener is entitled to alienate his property
inter vivos or by will.
Under the codified law, section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 a
coparcener may dispose of his share in the family property by will.

Legal Recourse in case of Invalid Alienation

If the father, karta, coparcener or sole surviving coparcener overstep their power
in making the alienation, it can be set aside by any other coparcener who has an interest
29
. Supra n .16 p. 277
30
. Supra n .3 p 397
31
. Supra n. 1 p. 315
32
. Ibid

11
in the property, from the time he comes to know of it till the time the suit is barred due to
limitation
Art 126 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 sets the period of limitation for a suit
by son challenging alienation made by the father as 12 years, Art 144 gives the period for
alienation made by karta as 12 years, in case of mere declaration the period is 6 years.
Only those coparceners who had been conceived at the time of the transaction are
competent to challenge the alienation, any person born afterwards is barred from doing
the same. The rules regarding adopted son are corresponding.
The debate about whether alienation without necessity is void or voidable was put
to rest by the Supreme Court in the case of R. Raghubanshi Narain Singh v. Ambica
Prasad33 where it was held that such alienations are merely voidable.
If the suit is filed by the alienee, then he can neither enforce it against the coparcener who
is entitled to make such alienation, nor can he get a conditional decree that alienation
wont be set aside until he is compensated.
In case of suits filed by the coparceners, Madras High Court has given some vital
rules in the case of Permanayakam v. Sivaramma34 where it was held that
1 If the alienation is made only for partial necessity, it may be set aside.
2 If alienation is only a device for distinguishing a gift, the other coparceners don’t lose
interest in the property or survivorship rights.
Finally it was laid down in the case of Sunil Kumar v. Ram Prakash35that a
coparcener cannot ask for an injunction against alienation on the ground that it is not for
legal necessity.

Burden of Proof

It has been laid down that in the case the alienation is made by the father for the
payment of his debts, then the burden of proof is on the alienation to prove that he had

33
. AIR 1971 SC 776.
34
. AIR 1952 Mad 435.
35
. AIR 1988 SC 576.

12
taken sufficient care to determine that it was for the payment of debt. The sons can rebut
this assumption only by proving that the debt was Avyavharik i.e. immoral
In the case the alienation was made by the karta it is again for the alienee to prove that he
took sufficient care in finding out if the transaction was for necessity or no, however once
it was proved that he had taken due care, the actual presence or absence of such a
necessity is irrelevant. These principles were given in the case of Hunooman Persaud’s
case.36
It is immaterial that there was earlier mismanagement of the estate if it can be
proved that there was sufficient cause for the alienee to believe that there was an actual
necessity which made it imperative that the alienation be made37
A lapse of time between the transaction and the filing of suit does not make any
difference in the procedure,other than that the standard of proof may be lowered if the
courts feel that the hard evidence has been lost because of the time difference, in this case
the presumptions will also be accepted as evidence.38
If the interest rate is unusually high then the burden of proof becomes twofold i.e.
it has to be proved that there was a necessity to take a loan and then to prove that it was
imperative to take the loan at such high rate. If the court is not satisfied as to the need to
take such high interest then it may decrease the rate of interest.39

Alienee’s Rights and Remedies

In case the alienation is valid then there would be no problem as the alienee
would automatically get all the rights of a mortgagee against the mortgager.

36
. Supra n. 10.h.
37
. Supra n . 16 p. 320.
38
. Supra n. 2 p. 815.
39
. Supra n. 2 p. 817.

13
However if the alienation is pronounced as invalid his situation is very unclear-
In the states of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Madras where the alienation is
set aside only to the extent of non alienating member’s share, in such cases, the alienee
has no equity for the share of that member.40
In the case of Narayan Pd v. Sarmam Singh41the Privy Council held that in states
where alienation can be totally set aside, the alienee would have no equity against his
purchasing amount. In the case Hasmat v. Sundar 42the Calcutta High Court said that if
the alienation made by the father was set aside, then the sum becomes the debt of the
father which has to be paid by the sons, hence they cannot set aside the alienation without
refunding the purchasing price, however this decision has been criticized as this principle
is violative of the antecedent rule.
The case of Sideshwar v . Bubheshwar43 it was held that the alienee was not
entitled to the mesne profit on the property from the day of the purchase till the day of the
partition.
In the states of Maharshtra, Madhya Pradesh and Madras the ailenee can only file
for specific property and not for a general partition.
Even after this, the alienee maybe allotted a share different from what he
purchased, this principle was laid down in the case of Padmanabh v. Abraham44 which
said that though it would be in all fairness kept in mind that the alienee be given the share
he has purchased but he could be given other share if it causes injustice to the other
coparceners. It must be noted that this is in accordance with the Mitakshara principle that
“no member has a right without express agreement to claim a specific portion as his,
same applies to the alienee as he steps into the shoes of the coparceners.

40
. Supra n. 2 p. 819.
41
. 1917 PC 41; supra n. 16 p.327.
42
. (1885)11 Cal 396; supra n. 3 p. 565.
43
. Supra n .16 p 330.
44
. AIR 1954 SC 177.

14
 Conclusion and Suggestions

Alienation is one of the concepts which evolved during the basic construction of
Hindu laws and it maintained its importance right throughout. The rules regarding
conditions in which a valid alienation can be made are very practical and pragmatic for
example the condition of Apatkale i.e. in the time of distress gives actual utility of the
joint family property because the share of all the members can be used to avert distress to
any one of them, this is a safety net which saves people from utter ruin and gives them a
chance to start afresh, a chance which is never given to the people in the supposedly
highly civilized and progressive western nations. Secondly coming to the condition of
Kutumbarthe or ‘for the benefit of estate’, it provides the joint family members a chance
to improve their standard of living by pooling their resources and utilizing them for their
own benefit. This can be put to practical use for family benefit also in the shape of family
business which is a common Indian occurrence. Lastly we come to Dharmarthe i.e.
alienations made for religious purposes, this gives us an insight into the traditional Indian
thinking where religion is a way of life. Hence religious purposes are as important as
times of distress as they lead to deliverance.

The new changes made by the case law mostly by the Privy Council and the High
Courts have been equally empowering and given the joint family members the power to
use the property for their upliftment. Chief among these are – firstly the total control
which a father now has on over his separate movable and immovable property, this is a
departure from the ancient law which did not allow a father to dispose off his separate
property according to his own wishes. Secondly the new powers given to alienate his
share in the undivided family property for his own use with or without the consent of the
other coparceners. This gives the power to him to use his share for purposes which may
not qualify as necessity for the whole family but are very important for him. It also gives
him a right to benefit from his share without severance from the joint family which
occurs at the time of partition. Thirdly the ground of Apatkale has been satisfactorily
extended to include along with situations of emergency and distress, those situations
which may seem proper and reasonable to the court. This has gone a long way in making
the law of alienation much more suited to present conditions.

15
 However there still remain conditions where much is needed and where the
judicial reforms have been conspicuous by their absence or have fallen short of their
mark.
Chief among these are the situation of the alienee in front of law, in my opinion
the alienee gets the worst bargain in the whole deal, starting from the alienation to the
actual partition in case the alienation is proved to be valid. Hence the first suggestions to
improve the law of alienation are regarding :-
First, the burden of proof of the alienee to prove that he took sufficient care to
ascertain whether there was actual need should be lifted, instead in cases of invalid
alienation it should be demanded of the alienor to prove that there was actual condition
which demanded instant redress. This should be so because the alienee being an outsider
is not in a favourable position to ascertain it and such an obligation imposed on these
transactions would make lenders unwilling to deal in joint property which would in turn
adversely affect the rights of joint family members.
Second, the law according to which the purchaser loses all his interest in the joint
property along with all the chance of getting back the purchasing amount is grossly
unjust. It should be noted that the courts in their haste to safeguard the interest of the non
alienating coparceners, forget the interest of the innocent purchaser who has made a blna
fide deal. Hence sufficient recourses should be made for this.
Thirdly, even in the case of a valid alienation the rights of the alienee are far from
just and this should be accordingly changed so that the alienee is entitled to the mesne
profit of the property from the day of the purchase instead of the day of the partition, also
he should be entitled to receive only that property which was alienated to him, in my
opinion his interest is more than a mere coparcener.
Other than that some minor suggestions like the coparcener should be given the
right to seek an injunction against alienations which can be proved to be invalid.
Lastly the position regarding the gifts of affection of immovable property should
be made clear and uniform.

16
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
G.M. Divekar, HINDU LAW: A CRITICAL COMMENTARY, 2nd ed. 2002, Hindu Law
House, Pune.

R.J.Misra, Mayne’s TREATISE ON HINDU LAW & USAGE, 15th ed. 2003, Bharat
Law House, New Delhi.

S.A. Desai, (rev.), MULLA PRINCIPLES OF HINDU LAW, 28th ed. 2004, Butterworths
Publications, New Delhi.
Acharya Shuklendra, HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY: TAXATION AND TAX
PLANNING, 1st ed. 2000 (rep. 2003), Modern Law Publications, Allahabad.
T.V. Rao and Vijender Kumar, (rev.), G.C.V. Subba Rao, FAMILY LAW IN INDIA, 9th
ed. 2006, S. Gogia & Company, Hyderabad.

iv