Express consent to a Hindu widow's voidable alienation personally bars a presumptive reversioner from later challenging it.

A Hindu widow's alienation without necessity is voidable rather than void and may be affirmed by a person entitled to challenge it. Estoppel does not apply where the alienee has not relied to their detriment on the reversioner's representation, and strict election does not apply where the reversioner received no transaction benefit. However, a presumptive reversioner's definite, positive consent and express agreement to abide by the alienation constitute a personal election to treat it as valid. Although mere inaction before succession opens does not bind the reversioner, such express assent bars that person from later challenging the alienation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a presumptive male reversioner who positively consents to, and agrees to abide by, a Hindu widow's alienation without necessity, without receiving consideration or benefit, is bound by that alienation after succession opens.

Analysis: Estoppel was inapplicable because the alienee had not acted to his detriment on any representation. Strict election was also inapplicable because the reversioner received no benefit under the transaction. However, an alienation by a widow is voidable, not void, and may be affirmed by a person entitled to avoid it. Although a presumptive reversioner is not bound merely by inaction before the succession opens, a definite and positive manifestation of an intention to abide by the widow's alienation constitutes an actual election to treat it as valid. A prospective reversioner may therefore personally bind himself by an express consent and agreement to abide by the transaction even before becoming entitled to possession.

Conclusion: A presumptive reversioner who has positively and definitively consented to the alienation and agreed to abide by it is personally barred from subsequently challenging it, notwithstanding that no consideration or benefit was received.

---