8. Opinions have been advanced for some time past, in opposition to the rule laid down in the Dayubhagu, authorizing a father to make a sale or gift of ancestral property, without the consent of his sons and grandson. But these adverse notions created little or no alarm; since, however individual opinions may run, the general principles followed by every Government are entirely at variance with the practice of groundlessly abrogating, by arbitrary decision, such civil laws of a conquered country as have been clearly and imperatively set forth in a most authoritative code, long adhered to by the natives, and repeatedly confirmed, for upwards of half a century, by the judicial officers of the conquerors. But the people are now struck with a mingled feeling of surprize and alarm, on being given to understand that the Supreme Law Authority in this country, though not without dissent on the Bench, is resolved to introduce new maxims into the law of inheritance hitherto in force in the province of Bengal; and has, accordingly, in conformity with the doctrines found in the Mitakshura, declared every disposition by a father of his ancestral real property, without the sanction of his sons and grandsons, to be null and void.[1]
- ↑ During the early part of this century, the law regarding the power of alienation of Hindus over ancestral property, under the Bengal School, was much unsettled. In the reported cases from 1792 to 1816 we find that the Courts favoured the absolute power of alienation by the father. In 1816, however, the law was unsettled again by the case of Bhowanee Churn vs. the Heirs of Ram Kant which practically over-ruled all previous rulings and declared that the father’s power was limited. In 1829 and 1830 the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Sir Charles Edward Grey, repeatedly expressed his opinion against the father’s power in several cases, especially in the case of Unnodapersad and Tarapersad Banerjea. I831, however, the law was
