No right to “gift” or “will” the ancestral property - Judgements

Supreme Court in Ammathayee alias Perumalakkal v. Kumaresan alias Balakrishnan AIR

1967 SC 569 and the judgment of the Madras High Court in CGT v. R.M.D.M. Ranganathan
Chettiar [1982] 133 ITR 890 wherein it was held that the gift of ancestral immovable
properties by the karta to the members of the family was void. In the Supreme Court's case
cited above, it was laid down that the gift made to a wife by her husband of ancestral
immovable property out of affection cannot be upheld as no such gift is permitted under
Hindu law insofar as immovable ancestral property is concerned.

It has been held by the High Court of Madras that a father has no power to make
a gift of ancestral immovable property to his wife to the prejudice of his minor sons
(Rayakkal v. Subbanna [1892] ILR 16 Mad 84).

Andhra Pradesh high court case –

Commissioner of Gift-Tax, A. P. vs. P. Hanumanthappa And Another, 1968 68 ITR 363 AP,
"The karta and his younger brother, the only members of the Hindu undivided family have
made these gifts. It is well settled that a Hindu father in a Mitakshara family has no right to
deal with his sons interest and properties, not even by way of family arrangement in a
manner which alters the ordinary devolution of properties under the Hindu law."

Thamma Venkata Subbamma v. Thamma Rattamma since reported in AIR 1987 SC 1775
held that a gift by a coparcener of his undivided share in copercenery property without the
consent of all the other coparceners is void and, as such, held that the gift deeds were void
and unenforceable.

Mitakshara law

According to Mitakshara law as applied in all the States, no coparcener can dispose of his
undivided interest in coparcenary property by gift. Such transaction being void altogether.

Daughters Have Equal Rights In Ancestral Property, Even If They Were Born Before
Enactment Of Hindu Succession Act, Holds Supreme Court:-

Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in [@ SLP(C) Nos.10638-10639 of

2013] in the case of Danamma @ Suman Surpurand another v. Amar and others, 2018
Indlaw SC 29 : “Accordingly, we hold that the rights under the amendment are applicable to
living daughters of living coparceners as on 9-9-2005 irrespective of when such daughters
are born. Disposition or alienation including partitions which may have taken place before
20-12-2004 as per law applicable prior to the said date will remain unaffected. Any
transaction of partition effected thereafter will be governed by the Explanation."