Grandson Cannot Claim Share In Grandfather's Property Allotted To Father After Partition: SC

The Supreme Court has ruled that a grandson does not acquire a birthright in property allotted to his father after the grandfather’s estate devolves on his Class I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

A bench of Justices Augustine George Masih and Sunita Agarwal dismissed an appeal by a man who sought half a share in land his father received in a partition of the grandfather’s property and later sold. The court held that the father became the exclusive owner of his share in his individual capacity, and that the property was no longer part of a joint Hindu family or coparcenary, Live Law reported.

The land belonged to the appellant’s grandfather. In 1993, the grandfather’s daughter filed a partition suit. A compromise decree passed in 1994 allotted the disputed land to the appellant’s father. The appellant was born in 1994. In 1997, his father sold the land to two purchasers.

The appellant, then a minor, filed a suit through his mother seeking partition and possession of half the property. He argued that the land was ancestral joint-family property and that he had acquired a coparcenary interest in it by birth.

A Chennai city civil court initially passed a preliminary decree in his favour. The purchasers appealed, and the first appellate court set the decree aside. The Madras High Court upheld that decision, ruling that the appellant had no birthright in the property allotted to his father.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant relied on Section 29A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989. He argued that the compromise decree had not converted his father’s share into individual property and that his father held it as the karta of a coparcenary. He also contended that the purchasers could not acquire greater rights than the seller, and that his father had not established legal necessity for the sale. The appellant cited earlier rulings in Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh and Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur.

The respondents argued that Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act governed the devolution of the grandfather’s estate and that a grandson was not a Class I heir while his father was alive. They also noted that the appellant had not challenged either the 1994 compromise decree or the 1997 sale deeds.

The bench relied on CWT v. Chander Sen, which holds that a son inheriting property under Section 8 takes it in his individual capacity, not as the karta of a joint Hindu family. The court said the “express words of Section 8” must prevail. It also referred to Bhanwar Singh v. Puran and Radha Bai v. Ram Narayan.

The court held that the grandfather’s property passed to his Class I heirs as tenants in common and that the partition ended the joint coparcenary. Each heir became the exclusive owner of the share allotted to them. A grandson is not listed as a Class I heir and, therefore, could not claim a direct interest in his grandfather’s estate under Section 8, the bench said, describing the provision as a “self-contained” scheme for the devolution of a Hindu male’s property when he dies intestate.

The bench further held that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and Section 29A of the Tamil Nadu amendment did not apply. The grandfather’s estate had devolved before the appellant’s birth, and the appellant was not a surviving coparcener when the succession opened.

The court also noted that the appellant had not challenged the partition decree or the sale deeds, while his suit sought only partition and possession of a half share. Finding no error in the Madras High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without costs and disposed of the pending applications.