The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, did not enlarge the estate or powers of alienation of a male proprietor over ancestral property, and the customary rules placing a check on such alienation continued to be operative.

Harbans Singh, J.

1. These two appeals (L. P. A. No. 232 of 1961 and L. P. A. No. 59 of 1962) under clause 10 of the Letters Patent have been referred to a the Full Bench by the Letters Patent Bench presided over by my Lord the Chief Justice Bench presided over by my Lord the Chief Justice. In one of these appeals, names. Joginder Singh V/s. Kehar Singh and others the male proprietor and gifted his land and the validity of the gift was challenged by the reversioner by filing the usual declaratory suit out of which this appeal has arisen. The allegation sin the plaint were that ht eland was ancestral and the parties were governed by custom. In other appeal, Inder Singh V/s. Jagir Singh the male proprietor has made a sale and the same saw also challenged on similarly grounds. Both the gifts and the sale were made after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. In both the cases the land was found to be ancestral and the sale was found to be without legal necessity.

The main defence taken on behalf of the defendants in both the cases was that by virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act the limitation on the powers of alienation of a male proprietor had ceased to exist and consequently the reversioner were debarred form challenging such alienations. For this reliance was placed on an Allahabad decisions in Hanuman Prasad V/s. Indrawati, AIR 1958 all 304. Following this trial Court dismissed both the suits. However in appeal the decision were reversed and its was held that although by virtue of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act the estate held by a female has been enlarged into a absolute estate and as a result thereof an alienation made by a female cannot be challenged by the reversioner there is nothing in the Act which in any way has enlarge, in the same manner the estate held by a male proprietor and the limitations on his powers of alienation were in no way removed and that consequently there was noting to debar the reversioner form challenging such alienations.

This order was upheld by the learned Single Judge in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Kaur Singh V/s. Jaggar Singh, 1961-63 Punj L R 537: (AIR 1961 Punj 489). In this latter judgment of the Divisions Bench to which my learned brother Dua J. was a party it was held that there was no provision in the Act enlarging the estate of a male holder the restrictions on his power of disposal of ancestral property continue as such. It was pointed out that if was not doubt anomalous that the powers of a male proprietor to alienate property should be limited whereas the powers of a female it was held that in view of the fact that there could be a number of reasons why the Legislature considered it proper to enlarge the estate of a female without making a corresponding change in the case of a male proprietor the Court have only to go by the male proprietor the Court have only to go by the male provision made in the law and if there is any anomaly it is for the Legislature to remove it.

2. In the two appeals before us it was urged before the Letters Patent Bench that in view of the decision in 1961. 63 Punj L R 537: (AIR 1961 Punj 489) a women has been placed in a better position than a male owner so far as her powers of alienation are concerned; that this infringed the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and the consequently "any custom or law which restricts male owners from alienating property while allowing females to do so without restriction must be regarded as an unreasonable interference with the fundamental right to own and deal with property conferred by Art. 19 of the Constitution. " In view of this it was further urged that the decision of the Division Bench mentioned above required consideration. It is in these Circumstances that the matter has come up before this Bench.

3. In the Punjab the right of succession and power of alienation are governed by personal law i. e., in case of Muslims by Muhammadan Law and in case