Court rules properties self-acquired, dismisses partition claim. Appeal allowed, lower court judgments set aside.

The court determined that the properties bequeathed to defendant No. 1 by his father were self-acquired and not ancestral. The will explicitly granted absolute rights to the sons, indicating the properties' self-acquired nature. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for partition was dismissed, the appeal was allowed, and judgments of lower courts were set aside. Each party was directed to bear their own costs due to the legal issue's complexity.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of properties bequeathed under a will.
2. Determination of ancestral vs. self-acquired properties.
3. Rights of sons in self-acquired properties of the father.
4. Interpretation of Mitakshara law regarding property disposition.
5. Judicial opinions on property classification.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of Properties Bequeathed Under a Will:
The primary issue was whether the properties obtained by the defendant No. 1 under his father's will should be considered ancestral or self-acquired. The plaintiff claimed a one-third share in the properties, asserting they were joint family properties. The defendant No. 1 argued that the properties were self-acquired, given to him by his father through a will, and thus not subject to partition among his sons.

2. Determination of Ancestral vs. Self-Acquired Properties:
The court examined the Mitakshara law to determine the nature of the properties. According to Mitakshara, a father's self-acquired property can be disposed of without the sons' consent, and such property, when gifted or bequeathed, does not automatically become ancestral in the hands of the recipient. The court concluded that the properties bequeathed to defendant No. 1 by his father should be considered self-acquired, as the will explicitly vested absolute rights in the sons, including powers of alienation.

3. Rights of Sons in Self-Acquired Properties of the Father:
The court emphasized that under Mitakshara law, a father has full and uncontrolled powers of disposition over his self-acquired property. The sons cannot interfere with these rights. The court cited precedents where it was held that a father could sell, gift, or distribute his self-acquired property unequally among his heirs. The court rejected the notion that such properties automatically become ancestral in the hands of the donee.

4. Interpretation of Mitakshara Law Regarding Property Disposition:
The court analyzed various texts from Mitakshara to clarify the father's rights over self-acquired property. It noted that while the father's self-acquired property could be gifted without the sons' consent, such gifts do not necessarily become ancestral property. The court also referred to judicial precedents, including decisions from the Privy Council, which supported the view that a father's self-acquired property remains self-acquired in the hands of the donee unless explicitly stated otherwise in the gift or will.

5. Judicial Opinions on Property Classification:
The court acknowledged the conflicting judicial opinions from different High Courts on whether gifted property should be considered ancestral or self-acquired. It cited decisions from the Calcutta, Madras, Patna, Bombay, Allahabad, and Lahore High Courts, highlighting the diversity of views. Ultimately, the court favored the interpretation that a father's gift remains self-acquired unless there is a clear intention to make it ancestral.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the properties bequeathed to defendant No. 1 by his father were self-acquired and not ancestral. The will explicitly granted absolute rights to the sons, including powers of alienation, indicating the testator's intention for the properties to be self-acquired. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for partition was dismissed. The appeal was allowed, and the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside. Each party was directed to bear their own costs due to the importance and complexity of the legal issue involved.

---