SCOPE: The Rule Against Inalienability and the Condition Restraining Alienation has bee

explained in Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Sec. 10. Condition restraining alienation. Where property is transferred subject to condition limitation absolute
a or
restrainingthe transferee or any person claiming under him from parting with or disposing of his interest in the property
condition or limitation is void, except in the case of a lease where the condition is for the benefit of the lessor or those claimi
under him:

Provided that property may be transferred to or for the benefit of (not being
a woman a Hindu, Muhammadan or Buddhist
so that she shall not have power during her marriage to transfer or aharge the same or her beneficial interest therein
IMPORTANT POINTS:
A. MEANING: When the property is transferred absolutely from one
person to another that means h
should enjoy that property with his free will and consent, and without
any conditions. If the transfed
imposes any repugnant conditions, restricting the transferee to alienate the property, such conditions
will become void. This is called "Rule against inalienability". Under such
circumstances, the transferet
can ignore those repugnant
conditions
B. PROBLEM: X transferred his property to Y with a condition that Y has to
transfer, if at all he wan
to transfer, only 2 and none else. Y attempted to transfer the
property to A. Z disputed this. Decide t
(Dec, 2006, N.Uc
sOLUTION: No. This is a restraining condition. It is not valid.
C. PROBLEM: Two brothers partitioned their ancestral property. The C
partition deed has a clause th
if any one of the brothers wants to sell his share, he must sell his property to the other brothers. IsIs Su
suc
a condition valid?
a
sOLUTION: No. This is a restraining condition. It is not valid. tr
D. PROBLEM: A makes a gift of the property to B, with a condition that B must enjoy the properny
during hislife time. I he
wants to sel the
property, he must sell to A only at the half of the market value.
valid?
Is such a condition

sOLUTION: No. This is a restraining condition. It is not valid.

PROBLEM: A sells a property to B, but subject to a condition that B should not alienate the same without
A's consent. Is the condition valid? (June, 2010, O.U.)
sOLUTION: No. The condition is not valid.
PROBLEM: A sells a house to B with a condition that B shall himself reside in the house. Discuss the
validity of the condition. (May, 2006, B.U.)
sOLUTION: No. The condition is not valid.
# IN RE ROSHER, ROSHER ROSHER 20 Ch.D. 801)
E. vs. (1884)
Brief Facts: Rosher had some property. He wrote a will like this: 1 hereby give my property to my son
in fee simple with the tollowing conditions: (i) My son shall enjoy the property with absolute rights, after
my death; and (i) It he wants to sell the property or any part thereof during the lifetime of my wife (the
mother of the donee), must sell the property to my wife only @ 3,000/- pounds; (ii) She must be given
prionty; and (iv) f he wants to sell the property after her death, he can sell it at market price, which will
prevail then."

The testator Rosher died, and the property was devolved to his son Rosher as per his father's will. After
some time, he wanted to sell his property. At that time, the market value of that property was 15,0001-
pounds. Due to increase in the value of the property, the son (donee) did not want to sell the property
to his mother at 3,0001- pounds, which would be a loss to him. He offered to sell the property to others
including his mother, @ 15,000/- pounds Mrs. Rosher, the testator's wife, sued her son/donee
requiring him to specific performance of the will.
JUDGMENT: Under the Chairmanship of Person Chief Justice, the Jury gave judgment in favour of
son, and unanimously held that the restraint condition was void. They opined that restriction on alienation
cannot be upheld though the condition was only for a limited time.
F. #G. Narayanan and others (Appellants) vs. R.N. Rajagopalan and others (Respondents)
(AIR 1987 Mad 75)
Brief Facts: The suit properties belonged to one Subbier, who had two wives. Through his first wife
Meenakshi Ammal, he had a daughter Ramalakshmi Ammal (the third appellant). Ramalakshmi Ammal
married one Gopala lyer. They had two sons, namely, Narayanan alias Lakshminarayana
Meenakshisundaram lyer (the first appellant) and Mahadeva lyer (the second defendant in the original
suit Narayanan had two sons - R.N. Rajagopalan (Respondent No. 1) and Respondent No. 2. Through
his second wife Krishnammal, Subbier had four daughters and they were concerned with the dispute in
this Second Appeal.
Subbier, who admittedly owned the suit properties, executed a registered Will on 6-12-1921 and
subsequently died in 1928. Under that Will, the testator bequeathed the suit properties in favour of his
grandson, the first appellant G. Narayanan, and his heirs to be enjoyed by them from generation to
generation without powers of alienation and directed that they should feed Brahmins on "Thuvadasi
Day".
Respondent No. 1 born in 1945 and the Respondent No. 2 born in 1947. Narayanan and Mahadev lyer
(grandsons of the testator) partitioned the properties on 26-8-1950, and certain items of properties were
also given to the daughters of Krishnammal. Mahadev lyer sold certain items of properties which fell to
his share to the fourth respondent on 20-2-1963. The third appellant (daughter of Krishnammal) sold
the properties which fell to her share on 23-2-1968 in favour of fifth respondent herein. Respondents 1
and 2 sued the appellants before the Aditional District Munsif, Ambasamudram.
ISSUES: The main contention of the respondents was that the testator intended to give the properties
to Narayanan (grandson of the testator) for his life-time interest only, and after Narayanan all the properties
should be vested in the heirs of Narayanan from generation to generation. Narayanan had no right to
partition with Mahadev lyer and with the daughters of Krishnammal. Therefore the alienations as well as
the partition were void and inoperative transactions as the first appellant Narayanan himself was entitled
only to a life interest and the alienations would not endure beyond the lifetime of the first appellant.
The appellants argued that by the interpretation of the Wil, the condition that the properties should be
continued in the heirs of Narayanan from generation to generation was void and inoperative. They
contended that the will was valid, but the condition was not valid and not operative. Therefore, Narayanan
secured an absolute interest in respect of the suit properties under the will. Further they contended that
at the time of the will, the respondents were unborn, thus they had no right to challenge the validity of the
transaction of partition as well as sales.
 The tial Court, ie the learned Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram gave judgment in favo
the testator had transferred all his interest in the suit properties to the
favour a
appellants concluding that
appellant (Narayanan) for his lifetime and that the restraint imposed
on alienation of the properties by firs
first appellant was void, and therefore, the partition as well as the sale nd binding
deeds would be valid and bind
Finalty. the case was appealed to the Madras High Court
and confirm.
JUDGMENT The Madras High Court gave the judgment in favour of the appellants me
the decision of the Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram.
PRINCIPLES: () The interest conferred on Narayanan with reference to properties
was
only a life
nterest This conferment of life estate in favour of Narayanan under the Will alone was valid, and not th
subsequent life estates in favour of his heirs, i.e. Respondents 1& 2, who were not in existence on th
favour of not in existen
date when the testator died The creation of successive life estates in persons
was not permissible in law
(i) Their Lordships observed: t could not be said that clause 3 of the Will had cut down as absolut
nterest contered under Clause 2 and to that extent it was either inconsistent or repugnant and shou
therefore be ignored
Note This case-law may also be cited in Topics "Definition of Transfer of Property" (Sec. 5); "Repugnar
Conditions (Sec. 11): "Transfer for benefit of Unborn Person" (Sec. 13); and "Rule against Perpetuity
(Sec 14).
G Exception The Rule against inalienability has the exception which has been embodied in Sectior
10 (Second Part) itself, ie. in the case of a lease where the condition is for the benefit of the lessor d
those ciaiming under him, the condition imposed if any, shall be held valid.