1. The correct position, it seems to me, may be thus stated. An alienation of joint family property made by a Hindu father without the consent of the coparceners existing at the time is void able at their instance. Where the only other coparcener in existence besides the father at the time of the alienation is a minor son, the son alone has a right to sue to avoid the alienation of his share of the family property. His right to sue is personal to him, but if his suit is successful, the property is gained back for the family and ensures for the benefit of all future members. If he dies without suing, the property is lost to the family for ever. The question raised in this case is whether such a son's right to sue on behalf of the family can be exercised by a brother born after the alienation but before his own death. I am of opinion that it cannot, for the reason that the right to challenge alienations of family property is and must necessarily be confined to the coparceners alive on the date of the alienation. They alone are affected. They represented the family on that date. The interests of future members of the family were theirs and must continue to be in their hands only. They have power to ratify and power to challenge and death may rob them of either power and may rob their family of the only representatives competent to protect it in this respect. But it is plain that their power and their responsibility to succor the family fortunes must die with them, and it is just that alienations should be perfected by the death of all the coparceners in whom lay the power to ratify or to challenge or by their prolonged neglect or by their positive assent.
2. The consent, the prolonged carelessness or the death of all other coparceners who were alive when family property is alienated by a Hindu father-these three things finally deprive the family of all right to challenge such an alienation. This view, it seems to me, receives support from Visweawara Rao v. Surya Rao : AIR1936Mad440 , Ranodip Singh v. Parameshwar Pershad and all the other cases quoted to me. I agree with the lower Court that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. I dismiss this petition with costs.