Introduction A l i e n a t i o n c a n b e d e f i n e d a s i t i n c l u d e s a s a ny d i s p o s a l b y t h e f a t h e r , k a r t a , coparcener or the sole surviving coparcener of a part or the whole of the joint family property by any act

t or omission, voluntary or involuntary, intended to take part in present or future1 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 m o d i f i e d b y t h e P r i v y 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 new f o u n d l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s . 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 j o u r n a l s a v a i l a b l e i n t h e l a w l i b r a r y o f N a l s a r U n i v e r s i t y o f L a w , J u s t i c e C i t y , Hyderabad. 1. Hari Singh Gour,THE HINDU CODE,6th ed.1996,p.586.1

.2 Research Plan For best understanding of the topic, the project has bee n d i v i d e d i n t o t h e following headings-I n t r o d u c t i o n Giving a basic and general idea of alienation along wit h i t s u n i q u e distinguishing features Heading 1 Dealing with the fathers power of alienation which are in fact wider thanthat of the karta and which include the making gifts of affection and making alienationsfor the payment of his antecedent debts. Heading 2 Dealing with the history of kartas power of alienation, as it has been under the Hindu laws. Heading 3 Dealing with the concept of benefit of estate elaborately along with relevantcase 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 shastriclaw. Heading 6 Dealing with the coparceners right to alienate his undivided share in the jointfamily property, also the sole surviving coparceners right to alienate the joint property. Heading 7 Dealing with the legal recourses open to the non alienating members alongwith 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 dont get a right over the property by birth under Dayabhaga school, father doesnt need the consent of his sons for t h e p u r p o s e o f 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 propertywas 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 unanimouslyof 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 u s a g e s o f t h e p e o p l e , i s t h a t a H i n d u , w h o h a s s o n s , c a n s e l l , g i v e o r pledge, without their consent immovable ancestral property, situated inthe 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) 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 th e a n c e s t r a l m o v a b l e 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 . Rammamma 6 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 Bai 7 - In this a gift made to the daughter of Rs.20000 was held to be valid asthe total value of the estate was 10-15 lakhs. Fathers 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 inthe 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. Kartas powers of Alienation The modern law of alienation is completely based on the ancient texts with littleor no deviation from the basic rules given there. The modern law of alienation was settledto 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 waschallenged, here the case was that of a mortgage but the lordships made it clear that thesame principles would be applicable even in the case of sale or gift and that too by anymember, 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 e x e r c i s e d r i g h t l y i n t h e c a s e o f n e e d o r f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e e s t a t e . 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 a f f e c t e d b y t h e p r e c e d e n t m i s m a n a g e m e n t o f t h e e s t a t e . T h e a c t u a l pressure on the estate, the danger to be a v e r t e d , o r t h e b e n e f i t t o b e conferred upon it in the particular instance is the thing to be regarded .T h e i r l o r d s h i p s t h i n k t h a t t h e l e n d e r i s b o u n d t o i n q u i r e i n t o t h e necessities for the loan and to satisfy himself as well as he can with reference to the parties with w h o m h e i s d e a l i n g t h a t t h e m a n a g e r i s 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 alleged sufficient and reasonably credited necessity is not a condition precedent to the validity of his charge and they do not think that under thecircumstances, he is bound to set the application of money.10 9. (1856)6 MIA313;supra n. 3 p.370. 10. Ibid. The above given text gives the boundaries of kartas power inside which he cana l i e n a t e t h e j o i n t p r o p er t y e v e n w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t o f a l l t h e c o p a r c e n e r s . L i t er a l l y 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 thefamily (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 alienationonly in three circumstances i.e. Apatkale (in times of distress), Kutumbarthe (benefit of thefamily) and dharmarthe(religious purposes).Under Dayabhaga, t h e p o w e r s o f t h e k a r t a are similar to

that of the Mitakshara. However it differs in the powers of the father aremuch wider as Dayabhaga says that the father has absolute power to dispose off all kindsof ancestral property by sale, mortgage, gift, will or otherwise in the same way as he candispose off his separate property.11 11. Daya. II 28-31;supra n.7 p.594. Benefit to Estate The courts have not given a set definition of this concept, undoubtedly so that it c a n b e s u i t a b l y m o d i f i e d a n d e x p a n d e d t o i n c l u d e e v e r y a c t w h i c h mi g h t b e n e f i t t h e family. In the modern law the first exposition of the expression for the benefit of the estate was found in the case of Palaniappav. 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 frome x t i n c t i o n , t h e d e f e n c e a g a i n s t h o s t i l e l i t i g a t i o n a f f e c t i n g i t , t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f i t o r 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, w h e n a l a n d y i e l d i n g n o p r o f i t w a s s o l d a n d a l a n d yielding profit was purchased the transaction was held to be for benefit. In Gallamudi v. Indian Overseas Bank15, w h e n a a l i e n a t i o n w a s m a d e t o c ar r y o u t 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. 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 water tight compartment 16.The concept of legal necessity is essentially one which may change and isthus in a state of flux . I t c a n b a s i c a l l y me a n a l l a c t s d o n e t o f u l f i l l t h e e s s e n t i a l n e e d s o f t h e f a m i l y members and only those acts which are deemed necessary.17 The shastric condition on which the c o n c e p t o f l e g a l n e c e s s i t y 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 principleFood 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. Indispensable Duties T h e t h i r d g r o u n d u p o n w h i c h t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e ma n a g i n g m e m b e r w h e t h e r f a t h e r o r a ny o t h e r k a r t a t o ma k e a n a l i e n a t i o n o f f a mi l y p r o p e r t y r e s t s i s w h e r e t h e 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 piousobligation as it is the most essential sanskara.20 The major case in this regards is that of Gangi Reddi v. Tammi Redd i21 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 c o p a r c e n e r s , i f t h e p r o p e r t y a l l o t t e d b e s ma l l a s c o mp a r e d t o t h e t o t a l m e a n s o f t h e family. It also lays down the principle that the alienation should be made by the manager inter vivos and not de futuro by will. 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. Right of Coparcener to Alienate his Share Sole Surviving Coparceners right to alienate-When joint family property passesinto the hands of the sole surviving coparcener,it assumes the character nearly of hisseparate property, with the only duty on him being that of maintenance of the femalemembers (the widows) of the family. Thus barring the share of the widows he can alienate the other property as hisseparate property. However this is not valid if another coparcener is present in the wombat the time of the alienation. but if the son is born subsequent to the transaction then hecannot challenge the alienation.22 In case a widow adopts a child after the death of her husband, will such a childchallenge the alienation, i.e. can the doctrine of relation back be applied in such casesThe Mysore High Court in the case of Mahadevappa v. Chandabasappa 23

held that sucha child can actually challenge the alienation made by the sole surviving coparcener ashell 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 Bhimji v. Hanumant Rao24 and Babronda v. Anna 25 w h e r e i t w a s h e l d t h a t 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 nocoparcener 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 equalas regards immovable property. Since a single one of them has no power in any case tomake a gift, sale or mortgage of it26 Since the hindu sages laid great emphasis on payment of debts, the courts seizedt h i s p r i n c i p l e a n d s t a r t e d e x e c u t i n g p e r s o n a l m o n e y d e c r e e s a g a i n s t t h e j o i n t f a m i l y property.27 The law was settled in the case of Deen Dayal v. Jaidep 28 where it was held thatpurchaser 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 separate debt acquires his interest in such property with the power of ascertaining it andrealizing it by partition. The limitation to this rule is that such a decree should be passedor has interest attached during his lifetime.29 As far as voluntary alienation is concerned there are several rules pertaining todifferent states-Under all the sub schools of Mitakshara , alienation of undivided share isnot allowed unless it is consented upon by every coparcener.30

I n t h e s t a t e s o f M a h a r a s h t r a , M a d hy a P r a d e s h a n d M a d r a s , a c o p a r c e n e r c a n 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 Dayabhagaschool of law coparcener is entitled to alienate his propertyinter vivos or by will.U n d e r t h e c o d i f i e d l a w , s e c t i o n 3 0 o f t h e H i n d u S u c c e s s i o n A c t 1 9 5 6 a coparcener may dispose of his share in the family property by will. 29. Supra n .16 p. 277 30. Supra n .3 p 397 31. Supra n. 1 p. 315 32. Ibid 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 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.O n l y t h o s e c o p a r c e n e r s w h o h a d b e e n c o n c e i v e d a t t h e t i me o f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n a r e 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 putto 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 whois

entitled to make such alienation, nor can he get a conditional decree that alienationwont be set aside until he is compensated. In case of suits filed by the coparceners, Madras High Court has given some vitalrules in the case of Permanayakam v. Sivaramma34 where it was held that1 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 dont loseinterest in the property or survivorship rights. F i n a l l y i t w a s l a i d d o w n i n t h e c a s e o f Sunil Kumar v . Ram Prakash35 t h a t a coparcener cannot ask for an injunction against alienation on the ground that it is not for legal necessity. 33. AIR 1971 SC 776. 34. AIR 1952 Mad 435. 35. AIR 1988 SC 576. 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 taken sufficient care to determine that it was for the payment of debt. The sons can rebutthis assumption only by proving that the debt was Avyavharik i.e. immoralIn the case the alienation was made by the karta it is again for the alienee to prove that hetook sufficient care in finding out if the transaction was for necessity or no, however oncei t w a s p r o v e d t h a t h e h a d t a k e n d u e c a r e , t h e a c t u a l p r e s e n c e o r a b s e n c e o f s u c h a necessity is irrelevant. These principles were given in the case of Hunooman Persaudscase.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 36. Supra n. 10.h. 37. Supra n . 16 p. 320. 38. Supra n. 2 p. 815. 39. Supra n. 2 p. 817. Alienees Rights and Remedies I n c a s e t h e a l i e n a t i o n i s v a l i d t h e n t h er e w o u l d b e n o p r o b l e m a s t h e a l i e n e e would automatically get all the rights of a mortgagee against the mortgager. 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 isset aside only to the extent of non alienating members share, in such cases, the alieneehas no equity for the share of that member.40 In the case of Narayan Pd v. Sarmam Singh41 the Privy Council held that in stateswhere alienation can be totally set aside, the alienee would have no equity against his purchasing amount. In the case Hasmat v. Sundar42 the Calcutta High Court said that if the alienation made by the father was set aside, then the sum becomes the debt of thefather which has to be paid by the sons, hence they cannot set aside the alienation withoutrefunding the purchasing price, however this decision has been criticized as this principleis violative of the antecedent rule. T h e c a s e o f Sideshwar v . Bubheshwar43 i t w a s h e l d t h a t t h e a l i e n e e w a s n o t 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 filefor specific property and not for a general partition.

Even after this, the alienee maybe allotted a share diff e r e n t f r o m w h a t h e 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 shareh e h a s purchased but he could be given other share if it causes i n j u s t i c e t o t h e o t h e r coparceners. It must be noted that this is in accordance with the Mitakshara principle thatno 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. Conclusion and Suggestions Alienation is one of the concepts which evolved during the basic construction of H i n d u l a w s a n d i t ma i n t a i n e d i t s i mp o r t a n c e r i g h t t hr o u g h o u t . T h e r u l e s r e g a r d i n g 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 toany one of them, this is a safety net which saves people from utter ruin and gives them achance to start afresh, a chance which is never given to the people in the supposedlyhighly 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 chanceto 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 b u s i n e s s w h i c h i s a c o mm o n I n d i a n o c c u r r e n c e . L a s t l y w e c o me t o Dharmarthe i.e.alienations made for religious purposes, this gives us an insight into the traditional Indianthinking where religion is a way of life. Hence religious purposes are as important astimes of distress as they lead to deliverance. The new changes made by the case law mostly by the Privy Council and the HighCourts have been equally empowering and given the joint

family members the power touse the property for their upliftment. Chief among these are firstly the total controlwhich a father now has on over his separate movable and immovable property, this is adeparture 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 hisshare in the undivided family property for his own use with or without the consent of theother coparceners. This gives the power to him to use his share for purposes which maynot qualify as necessity for the whole family but are very important for him. It also givesh i m a r i g h t t o b e n e f i t f r o m his share without severance from the joint family w h i c h occurs at the time of partition. Thirdly the ground of Apatkale has been satisfactorilyextended to include along with situations of emergency and distress, those situationswhich may seem proper and reasonable to the court. This has gone a long way in makingthe law of alienation much more suited to present conditions.15 H o w e v e r t h e r e s t i l l r e m a i n c o n d i t i o n s w h e r e mu c h i s n e e d e d a n d w h e r e t h e 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 toimprove the law of alienation are regarding :First, the burden of proof of the alienee to prove that he took sufficient care to a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r t h e r e w a s a c t u a l n e e d s h o u l d b e l i f t e d , i n s t e a d i n c a s e s o f i n v a l i d 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 p r o p e r t y a l o n g w i t h a l l t h e c h a n c e o f g e t t i n g b a c k t h e p u r c h a s i n g a mo u n t i s g r o s s l y 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 blnafide 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 LawHouse, Pune. R.J.Misra, Maynes TREATISE ON HINDU LAW & USAGE, 15th ed. 2003, BharatLaw House, New Delhi. S.A. Desai, (rev.), MULLA PRINCIPLES OF HINDU LAW, 28th ed. 2004, ButterworthsPublications, New Delhi. Acharya Shuklendra, HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY: T A X A T I O N A N D T A X 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