A got certain property in a compromise decree under a condition that she shall not have the power to transfer this property to the stranger and the ownership of the property shall devolve on her legal heirs from generation to generation.
However, she took possession of the property and sold it to the appellant.
After 12 years, the suit was brought by the respondent for the recovery of 2/3 of share contending that the owner took only a life interest without power of alienation, and after her death, the share passed on to her heirs.
ISSUE
Whether a partial restriction regarding alienation be repugnant?
HELD
It was held if the condition is that the transferee should not sell it outside his family or even community, then it will be valid condition, provided both transferor and transferee are members of the same family or community.
But if the transferor himself sells the property to an outsider, he cannot put a condition that binds the transferee to sell the property only to members of the transferor’s family.
Family arrangements are specially favoured in the course of equity.
The transferee had no power to alienate to the appellant (strangers to her), and upon her death, the respondents (legal heirs) would get the title to the property.