C.N. ARUNACHALA MUDALIAR V. C.A. MURUGANATHA MUDALIAR AIR 1953 SC 495
Held: a. A Mitakshara father has right of disposition over his self-acquired property to which no exception can be taken by his male descendants, it is in our opinion not possible to hold that such property bequeathed or gifted to a son must necessarily, and under all circumstances, rank as ancestral property in the hands of the donee in which his sons would acquire co-ordinate interest.
b. The expression “obtained through favour of the father” Section 4 of Mitakshara is very significant. A Mitakshara father can make a partition of both the ancestral and self- acquired property in his hands any time he likes even without the concurrence of his sons; but if he chooses to make a partition, he has got to make it in accordance with the directions laid down in the law.
c. A Mitakshara father has complete powers of disposition over his self-acquired property, it must follow as a necessary consequence that the father is quite competent to provide expressly, when he makes a gift, either that the donee would take it exclusively for himself or that the gift would be for the benefit of his branch of the family.
If there are express provisions to that effect either in the deed of gift or a will, no difficulty is likely to arise and the interest which the son would take in such property would depend upon the terms of the grant.
d. If, however, there are no clear words describing the kind of interest which the donee is to take, the question would be one of construction and the court would have to collect the intention of the donor from the language of the document taken along with the surrounding circumstances in accordance with the well-known canons of construction.
e. Therefore, mitakshara father is not only competent to sell his self-acquired property to a stranger without the concurrence of his sons but he can make a gift f such property to one of his own sons to the detriment of another and can also make unequal distribution amongst his heirs.
