take their consent, but he is not answerable to each of them.

HUNOOMANPERSAUD PANDAY V MUSSUMAT No doubt the law confers a right on the coparcener to challenge the alienation made by
Karta, but that right is not inclusive of the right to obstruct alienation. For the right to
BABOOEE MUNRAJ KOONWEREE (1856) obstruct alienation could be considered as incidental to the right to challenge the
alienation. The coparcener cannot claim the latter right and indeed, he is not entitled to
Issue- the question was whether a karta has power to execute mortgage of her infant son it. Therefore, he cannot move the court to grant relief by injunction restraining the Karta
when mortgage was for the benefit of the minor's estate, to prevent a sequestration and from alienating the coparcenary property. An injunction cannot be granted when a party
probable confiscation due to non-payment of government revenue. could obtain an efficacious relief by any other usual mode of proceeding (except in case
of breach of trust). The coparcener has adequate remedy to impeach the alienation
made by the Karta.
Decision- The Privy Council propounded the following five propositions:-
(i) The power of the guardian/manager for an infant heir (or the power of karta) to
charge an estate which is not his own, is under the Hindu law, a limited and qualified
power. It can only be exercised rightly in the case of legal necessity or for the benefit
of estate. DEV KISHAN V RAM KISHAN (2002)
(ii) In case a guardian/manager makes alienation as a prudent man, in order to benefit the Issue- The substantial question of law was whether the taking of the debt by a
estate, the bona fide lender or alienee is not affected by the previous mismanagement of major member of the family for the marriage of a minor member of the family is
estate, provided In other words, he shouldn't have acted mala fide. a debt incurred for a legal necessity or is for illegal purpose?
(iii) The alienee is bound to make proper and bona fide enquiries as to the existence of
necessity.
Decision- The court held that where the marriage of the minor was performed
in violation of the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, the debt
(iv) The alienee's position is not affected by the fact that if the minor's property were having been incurred for that purpose, which was not lawful, cannot be
properly and better managed, the danger or necessity would have not arisen. regarded as a lawful debt and alienation on that ground cannot be regarded as a
lawful alienation binding upon the minors If the property was mortgaged or sold
(v) The alienee is not bound to see as to the actual application of money for the legal for the purpose of marrying minors, such transactions would be opposed to
necessity. He is not an administrator of fund. public policy, in view of the prohibition of child marriage under the Act of 1929.

(vi) whenever alienation is challenged it is for the alienee to show ('burden of proof) that
there was necessity.

In the present case, there was no suggestion that the debt of infant father was contracted
BALMUKAND V KAMLAWATI (1964)
for illegal or immoral purposes. the widow (guardian/manager) with the object of saving Issue- whether karta alienate when the alienation was not for any legal
the estate, of paying the debt of her , predecessors, executed the mortgage bond. No
necessity or benefit to estate?
greater benefit. mortgage bond was in the nature of a salvage expenditure. Therefore, the
alienation will be binding on the son Decision- The karta, as 'prudent manager', can do all those things which are in
Moreover, a bond of this nature does not extinguish the title of the infant, it furtherance of family's advancement or to prevent probable losses, provided his acts
follows then, as a matter of justice and equity, that the mortgage bond is valid and are not purely of a speculative or visionary character. This implies that karta can't
of effect. convert family property into money just because property doesn't yield any income,
without replacing it with some more advantageous property. But, if the karta's power
SUNIL KUMAR v RAM PRAKASH (1988) is to be continued to purely defensive acts, there would be no progress. In A.T.
court held that the karta can alienate...if it is clearly beneficial,
Issue- whether a suit for permanent injunction by a coparcener against the father for even though there is no legal necessity. If a land not yielding anything is sold, then it
is...benefit
restraining him from alienating the house property belonging to the joint Hindu family
for legal necessity was maintainable. Thus, in each case, the court must be satisfied that "it was, in fact, such as conferred
or was reasonably expected to confer benefit on the family at the time it was entered
Decision- The Supreme Court observed: The significance and social necessity behind into." In the present case, brothers of the karta were adults, their consent as
'collective ownership' of JFP, and, the unique and vital position of the Karta/manager of coparceners is necessary. In view of the opposition of alienation by coparceners, and
the HJF cannot be overlooked. A Karta may consult the family members and if necessary the fact that the alienation was not for any legal necessity or benefit to estate, the

said alienation is voidable at the instance of coparceners. into a moral obligation. The father or his representatives can make a valid gift, by way of
reasonable provisions for the maintenance of the daughter, regard being had to the
financial and other relevant circumstances of the family.

The Court held: In the present case, the gift made by the father to the daughter was
Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur ( 2019) within his right and certainly reasonable. The family had extensive properties (worth
lakhs), and, the father gave the widowed daughter only a life-estate in a small portion of
Issue- The issues that arise for consideration before us are twofold: land (worth Rs. 5000). Thus, the gift to the daughter is valid.

2. Gift to relative
(i) whether the suit property was coparcenary property or selfacquired property of
appellant father; Issue- The issue arose: Can it be said that a gift of this nature to a relative out of
love and affection is a gift for "pious purposes" within the meaning of that
(ii) the validity of the Sale Deeds executed by appellant father in favour of expression in Hindu law?
Respondent No.1 and the subsequent Sale Deed dated 30.10.2007 executed by
Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
Decision- The Apex Court, in the present case, observed: It may, therefore, be
conceded that the expression "pious purposes" is wide enough, under certain
Decision- In the present case, the entire property of Lal Singh was inherited circumstances, to take in charitable purposes. The court held that It must be
by his son Inder Singh as coparcenary property prior to 1956. This coparcenary remembered that the manager has no absolute power of disposal over joint Hindu
property was partitioned between the three sons of Inder Singh by the court family property. The Hindu law permits him to do so only within strict limits. We
vide a decree of partition dated 04.11.1964. The shares allotted in partition to the cannot extend the scope of the power on the basis of the wide interpretation give to
coparceners, continued to remain coparcenary property in their hands qua their the words "pious purposes" in Hindu law in a different context. In the
male descendants. As a consequence, the property allotted to Dharam Singh in circumstances, we hold that a gift to a stranger of a joint family property by the
partition continued to remain coparcenary property qua the Appellant. manager of the family is void.

In the second issue court held that It is settled law that the power of a Karta to
sell coparcenary property is subject to certain restrictions viz. the sale should
be for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate.
R. KUPPAYEE V RAJA GONDER(2004)
the onus was on the alienee i.e. Respondent No. 1 to prove that there was a Issue- whether the gift/settlement made by the father in favour of his married
legal necessity, or benefit to the estate, or that she had made bona fide enquirie. daughter out of natural love and affection of a reasonable extent of immovable
property (one-twenty- sixth) out of the joint family property is valid?
As a consequence, the Sale Deeds dated 01.09.1999 are hereby cancelled as
being illegal, null and void. Dharam Singh could not have sold the coparcenary Decision- The Supreme Court, however, upheld the validity of the gift. The
suit property, in which the Appellant was a coparcener, by the aforesaid alleged Apex Court held that the father can make a gift of ancestral immovable property
Sale Deeds. to his daughter (a pious purpose) within reasonable limits. Though the alienation
must be by an act inter vivos and not by Will, but the extended meaning given to
the words "pious purposes" enables the father to make such A gift of JFP at the
time of her marriage or even long after her marriage. However, the extended
Guramma Bhratar Chanbasappa v. Mallappa meaning has not been extended ) the gift made in favour of other female
members of the family
Chanbasappa(1964)
The question as to whether a particular gift is within reasonable limits or not
in this case, gift of immovable JHF property excited in twofolds- has to be judged according to the status of the family and the extent and value of
the property gifted. No hard and fast rule prescribing limits of such a gift can be
1. Gift to daughter laid down. In the present case, one-twenty-sixth share of the total holding of the
family cannot be held to be either unreasonable or excessive under any
Issue- whether a gift of joint family immovable property to daughter, (window) circumstances.
made by the father after her marriage was held valid. At the time of making of
this gift, the father had three wives, one out of which was pregnant and later
gave birth to a son, is justified?
Arvind & Abasaheb Ganesh Kulkarni v. Anna
& Dhanpal Parisa Chougule(1980)
Decision- The Apex Court analysed various Hindu Texts and decisions of the courts
on the point And held that The right was lost by efflux of time. But it became crystallized Issue- The question as to whether ancestral property is sold for the purpose of
discharging debts incurred by the father and the bulk of the proceeds of the sale Fact- In this case, a female Hindu along with her sister inherited property their mother on
is so accounted, the fact that a small part of the consideration is not accounted the latter's death. After inheriting the property one sister died issueless. The other sister
for will invalidate the sale or not? took the property as her 'father's heir' [under Sec. 15(2)(a)] and entered into an agreement
to sell the same to a person A. The deceased sister's husband's brother challenged the
The trial court found that there was legal necessity for the sale to the extent of Rs. validity of this sale and claimed the property as an heir under Sec. 15(l)(b).
2,600 only, that the consideration of Rs. 3,000 for the sale was inadequate as the
lands were worth about Rs. 4,000, that there was no such compelling pressure on Issue- whether the case falls under S.15(2)(a) or 15(1)(b)?
the estate as to justify the sale and therefore, the sale was not for the benefit of
Decision- Section 15(2)(a) uses the words 'any property inherited by a female Hindu
the family. from her father or mother.' Thus property inherited by a female Hindu from her father and
mother is carved- out from a female Hindu dying intestate. In other words any property of
Decision- The Supreme Court upholding the validity of sale held that the sale was female Hindu, if inherited by her from her father or mother would not fall under Sec. 15(1),
for legal necessity as it had the effect of releasing six items of properties from the and, it should go the legal heirs of her father under Sec. 15(2)(a).
burden of the mortgage. The family was also relieved from the burden of paying rent
to the mortgagee under the lease back. Further, the consideration was not grossly
inadequate. Where ancestral property is sold for the purpose of discharging debts It is the source from which the property was inherited by the female, which is more
incurred by the father and the bulk of the proceeds of the sale is so accounted, the important for the purpose of devolution of her property. Even if the female Hindu
fact that a small part of the consideration is not accounted for will not invalidate the who is having a limited ownership becomes full owner by virtue of Sec. 14(1) of the
sale. Act, the rules of succession given under Sec. 15(2)(a) can be applied.

Om Prakash v. Radha Charan(2009)

Fact- One Narayani Devi was married to Dindayal Sharma in 1955. Unfortunately she
became a widow within three months of her marriage and soon after her in laws drove her
out from matrimonial home. She was supported by her parents and was given education
and she got an employment. Her in-laws never bothered to care for her. She died as an
intestate in 1996 leaving behind lot of money in bank accounts, a huge sumin her PF
account and self acquired properties. When her mother applied for succession certificate,

s brothers came on record as

Issue- Whether S.15 (1) or S.15 (2) would be applicable to the given case. Court observed
that The following observations :
Decision- This is a hard case involving moral aspects. The legal claimants had not lent
any support to the woman during her life [Link] it would not lead us to invoke
different interpretation of a statutory provision which is otherwise impermissible. It is
against the intention of the parliament. Sentiment or sympathy alone would not be a
guiding factor in determining the rights of the parties where the law is otherwise clear. It is
also to be observed that nothing prevented Narayani from executing a will in favour of her
brothers as they are her separate properties. As she died intestate, S.15 (1) alone will
prevail. Golden rule of interpretation must be applied in this case. Anything that falls
outside the scope of S.15(2) will come within the fold of S.15(1). Every property of a female
falls within S.15(1) except inherited properties which falls under 15(2). Hence the properties
Sec-15 & 16, Succession in the case of female
intestate
BHAGAT RAM [Link] SINGH ( 2002)