Stone, C J—The following questions have been referred:

Whether an alienation made by a Hindu, who at the date of the alienation had a coparcener living of coparcenary property, can be challenged by an after-born coparcener if such after-born coparcener was born or conceived (a) after the death, (b) before the death of the coparcener living at the date of the alienation. It is to be assumed that the alienation is of a character that opens it to challenge by a coparcener living at the time of the alienation. If this power is not possessed by either class of such after-born coparceners generally is it possessed by any sub-class, e.g. sons of either such class ?

2. These questions raise points which have been the subject of controversy in India and it appears desirable to consider the case law at some length. In Balwant Singh v. Rani Kishori,1898 20 ILR(All) 267 at pp. 284, 285, their Lordships of the Judicial Committee were considering the argument that even in the case of self-acquired property a father had no absolute power of disposition, an argument founded on the Mitakshara (Colebrooke's Translation) Chapter I, Section 1, Clause 27:

Though immovables...have been acquired by