Grandson Loses Claim To Half Of Land Father Sold, As Supreme Court Says Father's Allotted Share From Grandfather Was Exclusive

The appellant, born on 6 January 1994, sued through his mother in 1997 for partition and possession of a half share in land allotted to his father under a compromise decree dated 3 February 1994.

The land had formed part of the estate of the appellant’s grandfather, N. Ramakrishnan, and the appellant claimed a birthright in it as ancestral coparcenary property.

His father had sold the land to the other defendants in April 1997; neither the compromise decree nor the sale deeds was challenged in the suit.

The trial court decreed partition, but the First Appellate Court set aside that decree, holding that the father had acquired the property absolutely under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a male Hindu’s intestate property devolves upon the specified Class I heirs; a living son’s son is not included as an heir, and a son who inherits under Section 8 takes the property in his individual capacity, not as karta of a family including his own son.

The Act’s codified scheme prevails over any inconsistent pre-existing Hindu-law rule by virtue of Section 4.

The Court relied on C.W.T. v. Chander Sen, which established that property inherited by a son under Section 8 is not HUF property vis-à-vis his son, and on Bhanwar Singh v. Puran and Radha Bai v. Ram Narayan, which applied that principle to hold that partition among heirs leaves them holding as tenants in common and that a grandson cannot claim through a living father.

The pre-2005 Section 6 concerned devolution of an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property; Section 29-A, as applicable in Tamil Nadu, granted qualifying daughters coparcenary rights but did not apply absent a subsisting coparcenary in the circumstances of this case.

The grandfather’s estate devolved under Section 8 on his Class I heirs, including the appellant’s father, and not on the appellant, who was not a Class I heir as a living son’s son.

The heirs’ later compromise and partition therefore divided property they held as tenants in common; the father became the exclusive owner of the property allotted to him.

The appellant’s birth before that compromise did not convert the father’s Section 8 inheritance into coparcenary property or give the appellant a birthright in it.

Because the appellant was not a surviving coparcener when the grandfather’s succession opened, neither the pre-2005 Section 6 nor Tamil Nadu Section 29-A assisted his claim.

The appellant also had not challenged the compromise decree or the sale deeds.

The father held the allotted property exclusively and could transfer it.

The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs; pending applications were also disposed of.