The Supreme Court has held that a grandson cannot claim a right by birth in property inherited by his father under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, where the grandfather’s estate has devolved upon his Class I heirs and the respective shares have subsequently been partitioned.
A Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal ruled that property received by a son in such a partition becomes his exclusive property, held in his individual capacity, and does not retain the character of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or coparcenary property in relation to his own children.
The Court made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by a son who had sought a half share in land allotted to his father through a partition of his grandfather’s estate. The father had subsequently transferred the property to third parties through registered sale deeds.
The dispute arose from a property originally belonging to the appellant’s grandfather, N. Ramakrishnan. In 1993, the grandfather’s daughter instituted a partition suit, which was subsequently decreed on the basis of a compromise arrived at in February 1994. Under the compromise decree, a portion of the property measuring 1,811 square feet was allotted to the appellant’s father. The appellant was born on January 6, 1994.
In April 1997, the father sold the property to two purchasers through separate sale deeds. Thereafter, the minor son, represented by his mother and natural guardian, instituted a suit seeking partition and possession of a half share in the property, claiming that it constituted ancestral joint family property in which he had acquired coparcenary rights by birth.
Although the City Civil Court in Chennai initially passed a preliminary decree granting partition, the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, holding that property inherited by a son under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act is held by him absolutely and his own son does not acquire an interest in it by birth.
The Madras High Court subsequently upheld this position, observing that the appellant had not acquired any birthright in the property which had devolved upon his father through partition following the grandfather’s death.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the compromise decree did not transform the property into the father’s self-acquired estate and that he continued to hold it as the karta of a coparcenary. Reliance was also placed on Section 29A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, to assert that the appellant had acquired coparcenary rights by birth.
It was further argued that the purchasers could not acquire a better title than that possessed by the father and that the alienation of the property could not be sustained without establishing legal necessity. The appellant relied upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh and Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur.
Opposing the appeal, the respondents submitted that the devolution of the grandfather’s estate was governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, under which the property passed to Class I heirs in their individual capacities. They argued that the grandson was not entitled to claim a share in the property inherited by his father and that neither Section 6 of the Act nor the Tamil Nadu amendment was applicable.
Examining the statutory scheme and the judicial precedents, the Bench placed reliance on Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen, reiterating that property inherited by a son under Section 8 devolves upon him in his individual capacity and does not automatically become HUF property vis-à-vis his own descendants.
The Court emphasised that the express language of Section 8 must prevail while determining the devolution of property belonging to a Hindu male dying intestate.
It also referred to Bhanwar Singh v. Puran and Radha Bai v. Ram Narayan, observing that the grandson or granddaughter is not included as a Class I heir in the category of a son who is alive.
In this regard, the Bench explained that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not expressly preserve the right which a son’s son could claim in his grandfather’s property during his father’s lifetime under the pre-codified Hindu personal law.
“Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is to be read as a self-contained provision laying down the scheme of devolution of the property of the Hindu male dying intestate,” the Court observed.
Applying this principle to the facts, the Bench held that upon the death of the grandfather, his estate devolved upon his Class I heirs and did not constitute HUF property belonging to the father’s branch, including the grandson.
It further noted that the heirs succeeded to the estate as tenants-in-common rather than joint tenants. Once the partition was effected under the compromise decree, each heir became the exclusive owner of the property falling to his or her share, bringing the joint coparcenary to an end.
The Court also rejected the appellant’s reliance on Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and Section 29A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989. It observed that the appellant could not claim the status of a surviving coparcener upon the grandfather’s death, as the succession had already opened before his birth.
Significantly, the Bench noted that the appellant had instituted the partition suit in 1997 without challenging either the 1994 compromise decree or the sale deeds executed by his father. The father was alive when the suit was instituted and subsequently died in 2024.
Holding that the property allotted to the father had become his exclusive individual estate, the Supreme Court found no legal basis for recognising the appellant’s claim to a half share on the premise of acquiring coparcenary rights by birth.
Finding no infirmity in the Madras High Court’s judgment, the Bench dismissed the appeal without costs and disposed of all pending applications.
The judgment was delivered in J. Rajesh (Minor) Through His Mother and Natural Guardian J. Gomathi v. M. Kumaran (Dead) Through LRs & Ors., 2026 INSC 1208 (2026 LiveLaw SC 1148).
The post Grandson cannot claim birthright in property allotted to father upon partition of grandfather’s estate: Supreme Court appeared first on India Legal.