A, a hindu alienates coparcenary property in the lifetime of his sons B without B's consent and without justifying necessity. B dies 2 years the sale. Six months after B's death, another, son C is born to A's wife from 'A'. Discuss the right of 'C' who want to challenge the sale made by his father 'A'.

Question: A, a hindu alienates coparcenary property in the lifetime of his sons B without B's consent and without justifying necessity. B dies 2 years the sale. Six months after B's death, another, son C is born to A's wife from 'A'. Discuss the right of 'C' who want to challenge the sale made by his father 'A'. [DJS 2000]

Find the question and answer of Hindu Law only on Legal Bites. [A, a hindu alienates coparcenary property in the lifetime of his sons B without B's consent and without justifying necessity. B dies 2 years the sale. Six months after B's death, another, son C is born to A's wife from 'A'. Discuss the right of 'C' who want to challenge the sale made by his father 'A'.]

Answer

'C' will not succeed in his action of challenging the sale made by his father 'A' because under the Mitakshara School of Hindu law, if any alienation is made by a coparcener without consent of other coparcener and without justifying legal necessity, then the other coparceners are entitled to declare such alienation void. However, no such declaration was claimed by 'B' when his father 'A' alienates the coparcenary property in his lifetime without his consent and without justifying necessity.

Further, 'C' cannot challenge the alienation made by his father 'A' because he was neither born at the time of alienation nor took birth. And for challenging any such alienation, any of these two conditions must be fulfilled which 'C' is unable to fulfil. He was born 6 months after 'B' died. Thus, his action of challenging the sale made by his father 'A' will fail.

An alienation of joint family property made by father, when there being no male issue in existence at the date of alienation, then it is valid even though made without necessity. Such alienation cannot be objected by son conceived and born after the alienation on the ground that it was made without legal necessity. Moreover, an alienation made neither for legal necessity nor for payment of antecedent debts, by a father, without consent of son living, cannot be challenged by a subsequently conceived and born son when living sons either have ratified it or have predeceased their father and no other son was conceived or born at the time of alienation.

Therefore, in this case, right to challenge alienation was vested in B. But he, during his life time did not challenge the alienation and predeceased his father `A'. Father become sole surviving coparcener and was free to alienate joint family property even without legal necessity. At the time of alienation `C' was not even in the womb of his mother. He was conceived and born subsequent to alienation made by A; therefore, he has no right to challenge the alienation of property made by his father.

Hindu Law – Notes, Case Laws And Study Material

Test Series for Competitions