Grandson Cannot Claim Birthright in Property Allotted to Father After Grandfather's Partition: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has held that a grandson cannot claim a right by birth in property inherited by his father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, when the grandfather's estate has devolved upon his Class I heirs and has subsequently been partitioned among them.

A Bench comprising Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal dismissed an appeal filed by a son who sought a half share in land allotted to his father through a partition of his grandfather's estate. The Court clarified that property received by a son under Section 8 becomes his exclusive property in his individual capacity and does not automatically retain the character of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or coparcenary property.

Background of the Case

The dispute concerned a property measuring approximately 1,811 square feet, originally belonging to the appellant's grandfather, N. Ramakrishnan. Following the grandfather's death, his daughter instituted a partition suit in 1993. The dispute was subsequently resolved through a compromise decree dated February 3, 1994, under which the appellant's father received the disputed property.

The appellant was born on January 6, 1994. In April 1997, his father sold the property to two purchasers through registered sale deeds. The minor son, represented by his mother and natural guardian, subsequently instituted a suit seeking partition and possession of a half share, claiming that the property was ancestral joint family property in which he had acquired coparcenary rights by birth.

Although the City Civil Court, Chennai, initially passed a preliminary decree granting partition, the First Appellate Court reversed the decision. The Madras High Court subsequently upheld the position that the grandson had not acquired any birthright in the property allotted to his father.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

The appellant argued that the compromise decree did not convert the father's share into self-acquired property and that the father 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, and earlier decisions concerning coparcenary rights.

The respondents contended that the grandfather's estate devolved upon his Class I heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. They argued that the father received his share in his individual capacity and that the grandson could not independently claim a birthright in that property.

Supreme Court's Observations

Examining the statutory framework and earlier precedents, including Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen, the Supreme Court reiterated that property inherited by a son under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act devolves upon him in his individual capacity rather than automatically becoming HUF property in relation to his own descendants.

The Bench emphasised that a son's son is not independently included as a Class I heir when his father, who is the deceased's son, is alive and succeeds to the estate.

The Court observed:

"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 further explained that the grandfather's property devolved upon his Class I heirs as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. Following the compromise decree and partition, each heir became the exclusive owner of the property allotted to their respective share, bringing the relevant joint coparcenary to an end.

The Bench also rejected the applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and Section 29A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989, in the circumstances of the case. It noted that succession to the grandfather's estate had opened before the appellant's birth and that he could not claim the status of a surviving coparcener.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the Madras High Court's judgment. It also noted that the appellant had not challenged the 1994 compromise decree or the sale deeds executed by his father, but had sought partition solely on the basis of an alleged birthright.

Accordingly, the Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the property allotted to the father had become his exclusive individual property and that the grandson could not claim a half share on the ground of acquiring coparcenary rights by birth.

Case Details

  • Case: J. Rajesh (Minor) through His Mother and Natural Guardian J. Gomathi v. M. Kumaran (Dead) through LRs & Ors.
  • Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1208
  • Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 7020 of 2012
  • Court: Supreme Court of India
  • Bench: Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal
  • Date of Judgment: November 6, 2026
  • Relevant Provision: Section 8, Hindu Succession Act, 1956
  • Decision: Appeal dismissed