family law moot

Yashvardhan Raichand, Karta of the Hindu Joint Family consisting of his wife Nandini Raichand, two sons Rahul Raichand(married), Rohan Raichand (unmarried) and unmarried daughter Naina. Yashvardhan Raichand was running joint family business with his sons at Nabha (Punjab) by diverting a major portion of the income, yielded from 200 acres of ancestral land, into the business of the family. All members of the joint family were living in an ancestral house. Rahul Raichand had 3 sons; namely, Krishi Raichand, Aryan Raichand and Vikas Raichand and one daughter Malvika Raichand.
Yashvardhan Raichand and his wife died in the year 1985 and 1986 respectively. After the death of his father, Rahul Raichand became the head of the family. On becoming the head of the family he undertook a large scale diversification of business which was shifted to Patiala, and in order to augment the joint family business, Rahul Raichand sold 10 acres of ancestral land for rupees 10 crores to the Punjab and Sind Bank, Patiala. He also made a gift of Rs. 10 lacs in favor of his unmarried daughter Malvika Raichand.
Vikas Raichand the youngest son of Rahul Raichand was sent to England for his higher education at the expenses of the family. After doing Bar at law, he returned to India and established a flourishing practice as an advocate. Although he was staying in the joint family, he kept his earnings for himself, which was not liked by his two elder brothers and his sister.
Frustrated and depressed by the behavior of his own sons, Rahul Raichand died of heart attack in 2006. Realizing the reactionary behavior of her brothers, Malvika Raichand daughter of Rahul Raichand filed a suit in the year 2007 for declaration of ownership as coparcener and co-sharer in the joint family property wherein she also made a prayer for joint possession of the property in the dispute that included agricultural land, business assets/goodwill and ancestral house. She also prayed that income of Vikas Raichand, advocate be included in the joint property of the family.
The alienation made by Rahul Raichand in favor of Punjab and Sind Bank, Patiala was also challenged. In this suit she impleaded all her 3 brothers, Punjab and Sind Bank, Patiala and her uncle Rohan Raichand as defendants. In order to establish her claim, Malvika Raichand invoked Section 6 of the Hindu succession Act, 1956.
The defendants pleaded that:
The alienation in favor of Punjab and Sind Bank, Patiala was for legal necessity and benefits of estate and, therefore, valid.
The amendment made by the Hindu succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was prospective and the alienation under challenge being prior to the amendment was not affected by the change in law.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 being wholly against the concept of coparcenary and joint Hindu family property in law is illegal and ultra-vires. 

please tell the answers of three issues