https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292504 The sanad was construed as giving the grantee the malikana as heritable property, not as an absolute gift to a future unidentified heir. Under the Mitakshara law, a Hindu father may alienate or gift self-acquired immovable property, because the restrictive texts were treated as moral, not disabling, rules. On the facts, the village was treated as self-acquired property: a valid foreclosure had broken the ancestral title, and later acquisition did not restore its ancestral character. The objection that the decree was void due to an allegedly improperly appointed judge also failed, as the statute permitted appointment of an acting judge and imposed no immediate time-limit. en-us Fri, 18 Feb 1898 00:00:00 +0521 Sat, 26 Dec 2020 12:47:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292504 The sanad was construed as giving the grantee the malikana as heritable property, not as an absolute gift to a future unidentified heir. Under the Mitakshara law, a Hindu father may alienate or gift self-acquired immovable property, because the restrictive texts were treated as moral, not disabling, rules. On the facts, the village was treated as self-acquired property: a valid foreclosure had broken the ancestral title, and later acquisition did not restore its ancestral character. The objection that the decree was void due to an allegedly improperly appointed judge also failed, as the statute permitted appointment of an acting judge and imposed no immediate time-limit. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Feb 1898 00:00:00 +0521 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292504