GIFT OF AN ANCESTRAL PROPERTY TO HIS DISABLED SON

As it is an ancestral property, so as per the HSA,  the other sons and daughters of X shall also have equal share in it along with Y and X himself.  He cannot gift away other children's share to Y without their consent. However, he can gift his own share to Y.

Fathercan givt his share only to anybody, he cannot gift entire property because it is an ancestral property.  Other family members have got equal share in his share.

The property coming to the hands of "X" by way of partition of ancentral property would continue to be an ancestral property in his hands, in which all his sons and daughters would have an equal share as co-parceners.

As such, so long as the said property is in the hands of "X" as an undivided property (i.e. not partitioned between the co-parcenars i.e. himself, his sons and daughters), Mr. X cannot dispose of the property treating the same to be his absolute property.  Mr. only has an interest in the property, but the share is indefinite. 

But, once the said property is partitioned, then whatever share that falls to the share of Mr. X, it will be his separate individual property and he can do whatever he wants with it.  He can give it as a gift to his disabled son. 

In view of the above, the action of Mr. X in gifting away a portion of the land got by him through partition, in favour of his disabled son is open to challenge by his other sons and daughters.

Thanks to advocates who have expressed your views,

This is is in continuation to my earliear query i.e., if 'X' gifted only a small portion of the land to his disabled son 'Y' which he got from his father 'R' in partition, what would be the legal position?.  It is learnt that there is a Supreme Court ruling in favour of such transaction.  Kindly provide a copy/link to the judgement.

Inspite of valuable inputs by others , in property matters out of ten points , nine points are for possession and only one  point for law.

Even if it is HUF property the karta has full and absolute right .

For arguments sake suppose he sold the whole property and purchased a new one in the name of any one even in the name of a stranger it will be legal.