T. V. R. SUBBU CHETTY'S FAMILY CHARITIES vs M. RAGHAVA MUDALIAR AND OTHERS.

The Supreme Court held that the alienation of property by a widow and her mother-in-law was not binding on the reversioner, R, as it lacked legal necessity and was not ratified by R's conduct. The Court emphasized that a reversioner cannot be precluded from disputing a settlement if he was a minor at the time and had no knowledge of his rights. The judgment clarified that mere acceptance of benefits does not equate to ratification of the alienation, establishing that the reversioner's rights remain intact despite prior transactions.