Grandson cannot claim partition and injunction during father and grandfather's lifetime under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act.

In brief

The question

1. Whether a grandson can maintain a suit for partition and seek temporary injunction regarding property inherited by his grandfather under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, while his father and grandfather are still alive

The court held

It held that under the statutory scheme of the 1956 Act, a grandson has no locus to claim partition against his grandfather during the lifetime of his father when the property has devolved as per Section 8

It also directed

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the District Court's order. Rule discharged

01Facts

The Petitioners (original plaintiffs), being the son and wife of Respondent No. 1, filed a suit for partition, separate possession, and a declaration to nullify a sale deed regarding agricultural land in Gat No. 224

p. 3

The property originally belonged to the great-grandfather, Ramlal, who partitioned it between his sons, Mohan and Ganesh (Respondent No. 5/Grandfather)

pp. 4-5

The Trial Court initially granted a temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from creating third-party interests

p. 5

However, the District Court reversed this order in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2025, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case of existing rights during the lifetime of the father and grandfather

pp. 5-6

The Petitioners challenged this reversal via the present Writ Petition.

02Issues

i.1. Whether a grandson can maintain a suit for partition and seek temporary injunction regarding property inherited by his grandfather under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, while his father and grandfather are still alive

p. 9, para 11

ii.2. Whether property inherited by a male Hindu from his paternal ancestor post-1956 retains its coparcenary character or becomes self-acquired property in his hands

p. 10, para 13

03Law Applied

The Court applied Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 4 provides the Act’s overriding effect over old Hindu Law

p. 8, para 11

Under Section 8, property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves upon Class-1 heirs (including the son, but excluding the grandson of a living son)

pp. 8-9, para 11

The Court relied on Uttam v. Saubhag Singh (2016) 4 SCC 68, establishing that joint family property distributed under Section 8 ceases to be joint and is held as tenants-in-common

p. 9, para 12

It further cited Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur AIR 2019 SC 3098, which clarifies that if a person inherits property from paternal ancestors post-1956, it becomes self-acquired property rather than coparcenary property

p. 10, para 13

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 4 Section 6 Section 8 Section 19 Section 1

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 39 Section 43 Section 151

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the plaintiffs' pleadings were silent on the date of the great-grandfather's (Ramlal's) death and whether the property was ancestral or self-acquired in Ramlal's hands

p. 5, para 6 · p. 8, para 10

In the absence of these details, the Court presumed the succession opened post-1956. Consequently, when the grandfather (Ganesh) received the property through partition or succession from his father, he took it as an absolute owner under Section 8, and the property lost its coparcenary character

p. 8, para 10 · p. 11, para 15

Since the Petitioners’ father (Respondent No. 1) is still alive, the right to inheritance has not opened, and the grandson (Petitioner No. 1) possesses no birthright in the property of his living grandfather

p. 11, para 16

Therefore, the Petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case or a cause of action for partition or injunction

p. 11, para 16