The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a grandson acquires no right by birth in ancestral property once it devolves upon his father as a Class I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and is subsequently partitioned. The Court dismissed an appeal by a minor grandson seeking partition of his father's share, holding that the father became absolute owner upon partition among Class I heirs and could alienate the property freely during his lifetime.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, J. Rajesh, a minor represented by his mother J. Gomathi, filed Original Suit No. 1698 of 1997 seeking partition and possession of half share in a property admeasuring 1811 sq. ft. The suit property originally belonged to the appellant's grandfather, late N. Ramakrishnan. The appellant claimed the property was joint family property inherited by his father (first defendant in the suit) and himself as coparceners.
Key Facts
- The appellant's father's sister, G. Lalitha, filed a partition suit (C.S. No. 1728 of 1993) in 1993 for division of N. Ramakrishnan's properties
- A compromise decree was passed on 03.02.1994 allotting the suit property (1811 sq. ft.) to the appellant's father as his share
- The appellant was born on 06.01.1994, after the partition suit was filed but before the compromise decree
- The appellant's father executed two sale deeds in favour of original defendants 2 and 3 dated 03.04.1997 and 17.04.1997
- The appellant's parents married on 01.03.1993
- The appellant's father remained ex parte throughout the proceedings and died in 2024
- No challenge was made to the compromise decree or the sale deeds
Procedural History
- 1997: Original Suit No. 1698 of 1997 filed by appellant (minor) through mother for partition and half share
- Trial Court: II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai passed preliminary decree of partition in appellant's favour
- First Appeal: Original defendants 2 and 3 appealed against the preliminary decree
- First Appellate Court: Set aside the preliminary decree, holding appellant had no right by birth in father's share
- High Court: Affirmed the First Appellate Court's judgment dated 11.08.2010
- Present Appeal: Civil Appeal No. 7020 of 2012 filed before Supreme Court
- 06.11.2026: Supreme Court pronounced judgment dismissing the appeal
Relief Sought
The appellant sought restoration of the trial court's preliminary decree for partition of half share, setting aside the High Court judgment dated 11.08.2010, and declaration that sale deeds dated 03.04.1997 and 17.04.1997 are not binding on his share.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a grandson acquires coparcenary rights by birth in property that devolved upon his father as a Class I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and was subsequently partitioned among the heirs, where the father is still alive at the time of the grandson's claim.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel relied on Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, contending that in a Mitakshara coparcenary governed by the Tamil Nadu amendment, a son's right by birth remains intact notwithstanding partition. It was argued that the compromise decree dated 03.02.1994 did not convert the father's share into self-acquired property because Clause (iii) of Section 29-A preserves incidents of coparcenary ownership. Reference was made to Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh and Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur for the proposition that ancestral coparcenary property allotted to a coparcener on partition remains coparcenary property qua the allottee's son. The appellant, born on 06.01.1994, acquired coparcenary rights by birth before the compromise decree and was not made a party to the partition proceedings.
For the Respondent
Counsel contended that the case is governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, not Section 6 or Section 29-A. The property devolved upon the father as a Class I heir upon the grandfather's intestate death. Under the settled law in C.W.T. v. Chander Sen, Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel, and Radha Bai v. Ram Narayan, a son inherits in his individual capacity, not as karta of a Hindu Undivided Family. The grandson (son's son) is excluded from Class I heirs. Once partition takes place among Class I heirs, the property becomes exclusive individual property of each heir. The appellant never challenged the compromise decree or sale deeds, and the suit was collusive with the father who remained ex parte.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between Section 4, Section 6, and Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the effect of Section 29-A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989. The Court reiterated the principle established in C.W.T. v. Chander Sen that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, by its Preamble, seeks to amend and codify the law of intestate succession. The express words of Section 8, read with the Schedule, include "son" but exclude "son's son" from Class I heirs, while including "son of a predeceased son". This legislative design cannot be ignored.
"The express words of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot be ignored and must prevail. The Preamble to the Act reiterates that the Act is, inter alia, to 'amend' the law, with that background the express language which excludes son's son but includes son of a predeceased son cannot be ignored."
The Court held that Section 29-A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989, was enacted to grant coparcenary rights to daughters by birth, placing them on par with sons. It does not create new rights for sons; sons already possessed coparcenary rights by birth under uncodified Mitakshara law. However, those rights are subject to the overriding effect of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which provides that the Act prevails over pre-existing Hindu law in matters for which it makes provision.
The Court found that the succession opened upon the death of N. Ramakrishnan (grandfather) before the appellant's birth. The partition suit was filed in 1993, and the compromise decree dated 03.02.1994 effected partition among Class I heirs. Upon partition, each heir became exclusive owner of their share as tenants in common, and joint coparcenary ceased to exist. The father became absolute owner of the suit property in his individual capacity.
The Court distinguished Rohit Chauhan and Arshnoor Singh, noting those cases involved partition of ancestral property where the coparcenary continued qua the allottee's son. Here, the property devolved under Section 8 upon the grandfather's death, not under Section 6 by survivorship. Section 6 applies only when a male Hindu dies having an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property at the time of death. Once succession opens under Section 8, the property is no longer coparcenary property.
The appellant, born after the grandfather's death and after the partition suit was filed, was never a surviving coparcener at the time of the grandfather's death. Therefore, Section 6 and Section 29-A had no application. The father, being alive, could alienate his exclusive property without legal necessity, and the purchasers acquired valid title.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. The High Court's judgment dated 11.08.2010 was upheld. The trial court's preliminary decree for partition was set aside. The sale deeds dated 03.04.1997 and 17.04.1997 executed by the appellant's father were held valid and binding. All pending applications were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Section 8 Governs Devolution, Not Section 6
When a Hindu male dies intestate after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, his property devolves under Section 8 upon Class I heirs. The property does not devolve by survivorship under Section 6 unless the deceased had an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property at the time of death. Once Section 8 applies, the heirs take as tenants in common, not as joint tenants. Practitioners must identify the correct devolution provision before asserting coparcenary claims.
Grandson Excluded From Class I Heirs
The Schedule to Section 8 includes "son" and "son of a predeceased son" but expressly excludes "son's son" (grandson) where the father is alive. This exclusion is deliberate and reflects the legislative intent to amend the pre-1956 Hindu law under which a grandson acquired rights by birth. A grandson cannot claim a share in his grandfather's property during his father's lifetime.
Partition Among Class I Heirs Severs Coparcenary
A partition decree among Class I heirs under Section 8 converts the property into exclusive individual property of each allottee. The allottee holds the property in individual capacity, not as karta of a Hindu Undivided Family. Subsequent alienation by the allottee is valid without proof of legal necessity. The allottee's son acquires no right by birth in such property.
Section 29-A Tamil Nadu Amendment Benefits Daughters Only
Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 grants coparcenary rights by birth to daughters, not sons. Sons' pre-existing rights by birth remain subject to the overriding provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly Sections 4 and 8. The amendment cannot be invoked to preserve coparcenary character of property that has already devolved under Section 8 and been partitioned.
No Collusive Challenge to Partition Decree
A party who does not challenge a partition decree or subsequent sale deeds during the lifetime of the alienor cannot later assert coparcenary rights through a collusive suit. The appellant's father remained ex parte throughout, and no challenge was made to the compromise decree or sale deeds. Courts will not entertain such belated claims.
