Grandson has no Birthright in Father’s Share from Partition of Grandfather’s Property

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal decided J Rajesh (Minor) v. M Kumaran (Dead) Thr LRs & Ors (2026). The Court dismissed an appeal by a son who had asked for a half share in land his father received when the grandfather’s property was partitioned. The father had later sold that land. 

The Court also held: 

• Once the grandfather’s property is partitioned among Class I heirs, the father’s share becomes his exclusive property in his individual capacity. It is not coparcenary property. 
• Section 8 of the Act is a self-contained provision governing how the property of a Hindu male who dies intestate devolves. 
• Neither Section 6 nor Section 29A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment applied to these facts.

What was the Background of the J Rajesh v. M Kumaran (2026) Case? 

• The suit property: The grandfather, N. Ramakrishnan, owned the land. The appellant’s aunt filed a suit to partition his property. 
• 1993: The partition suit among the Class I heirs was filed. 
• 1994: The suit was decreed on the basis of a compromise. Under it, the appellant’s father (Defendant No. 1/D1) received the suit land. The appellant was also born in 1994. 
• 1997: D1 sold the land to Defendant No. 2 (D2) and Defendant No. 3 (D3) through sale deeds. 
• 1997: The appellant, still a minor, filed a suit through his mother as natural guardian. He asked for partition and possession of a half share. He claimed the land was the grandfather’s joint family property, which came to his father and, through him, to the appellant. 

Proceedings in the lower courts: 

• City Civil Court, Chennai: It passed a preliminary decree of partition in the appellant’s favour. The purchasers appealed. 
• First Appellate Court: It set aside the decree. It held that a son who inherits his father’s property under Section 8 takes it absolutely, and his own son has no right by birth in it. 
• Madras High Court: It upheld the First Appellate Court. It held that the appellant did not acquire a right by birth in property that reached his father through partition after the grandfather’s death, so he could not seek partition. 

Before the Supreme Court: 

• The Court noted that the appellant had not challenged the 1994 compromise decree or the sale deeds. The only relief he sought was partition and possession of a half share. 

What the appellant argued: 

• Under Section 29A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, the compromise decree did not turn the father’s share into self-acquired property. 
• The father held the property as karta of a coparcenary. 
• The purchasers could not get a better right than their seller had. 
• The father stayed ex parte until his death in 2024 and never proved legal necessity for the sale. 
• The appellant relied on Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh and Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur. 

What the respondents argued: 

• This was a grandson claiming succession to his grandfather’s property, which is governed by Section 8. Neither Section 6 nor Section 29A applied. 
• The appellant never challenged the compromise decree. 
• The purchasers bought in good faith, and the suit was collusive. 
• They relied on CWT v. Chander Sen, Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and Radha Bai v. Ram Narayan. 

Question before the Supreme Court: 

• Could the appellant claim a half share in his living father’s property, and seek a decree of partition, on the basis that the property was ancestral/joint family property?

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On the nature of property inherited under Section 8: 

• Following CWT v. Chander Sen, the Court held that a son who inherits property under Section 8 takes it in his individual capacity. He does not take it as karta of his own undivided family. 
• The express words of Section 8 cannot be ignored and must prevail. 

On the grandson’s position under the Act: 

• Relying on Radha Bai v. Ram Narayan, the Court noted that a grandson or granddaughter is excluded from the Class I heirs (while the son is alive). 
• A son’s son does not appear as an heir in Class I of the Schedule in that situation, so he gets no right in the grandfather’s property under Section 8. 
• Under pre-1956 personal Hindu law, a son’s son had a right in his grandfather’s property during his father’s lifetime. The legislature did not expressly save this right when it enacted the Hindu Succession Act. 
• Section 8 is a self-contained provision laying down how the property of a Hindu male dying intestate devolves. 

On the effect of partition: 

• Relying on Bhanwar Singh v. Puran, the Court held that the joint coparcenary did not continue after partition among the grandfather’s heirs. 
• On the grandfather’s death, the property passed to his Class I heirs. It did not become the HUF property of the son’s branch, which included the grandson. 
• Under the compromise decree, each heir became the exclusive owner of their share. 
• With the partition, the property stopped being joint family property. The heirs took it as tenants in common, not as joint tenants. 

On the timing of succession: 

• Succession opened when the grandfather died, which was before the appellant was born. The partition suit was filed in 1993. 
• So no interest in the suit property could pass to the appellant. 

On the claim of becoming a coparcener by birth: 

• Unamended Section 6 provided for devolution by survivorship on the surviving members of the coparcenary. 
• The record did not show the grandfather’s date of death, and the partition suit among the Class I heirs was filed in 1993. 
• Neither Section 6 nor Section 29A (inserted by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989) applied to these facts. 
• The appellant was not a “surviving coparcener” when his grandfather died, so he could not become a coparcener. 

On the conduct of the suit: 

• The suit was filed in 1997, long after the partition and during the father’s lifetime. 
• It did not challenge the partition decree or the father’s sale deeds. It rested only on a claim of inheritance as a coparcener by birth.

Decision 

• On the death of a Hindu male intestate, his property passes under Chapter II of the Act to his Class I heirs, who take it simultaneously, to the exclusion of all other heirs. 
• After the partition decree, the father’s share became his exclusive individual property. It cannot be called coparcenary property. 
• The grandson cannot claim a right in that property on the basis of acquiring coparcenary rights at birth. 
• The Court found no infirmity in the High Court’s judgment. 
• The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

What is the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 

About: 

• The Act amends and codifies the law of intestate succession among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. 
• It replaced the earlier uncodified personal Hindu law on succession wherever it makes a provision. Under Section 4, it overrides any custom, usage or text of Hindu law that is inconsistent with it. 

Section 6 – Devolution of interest in coparcenary property: 

• Before 2005: When a male Hindu died holding an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property, that interest passed by survivorship to the surviving coparceners. Under the proviso, if he left a female Class I relative (or a male claiming through her), his interest passed by succession instead. 
• After the 2005 Amendment: A daughter becomes a coparcener by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as a son. The rule of survivorship was abolished. (See Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, 2020.) 

Section 8 – General rules of succession for males: 

The property of a Hindu male who dies intestate devolves in this order: 

1. First, on the Class I heirs listed in the Schedule. 
2. If there is none, on the Class II heirs. 
3. If there is none, on the agnates. 
4. Finally, on the cognates. 

Class I heirs (Schedule): 

• These include the son, daughter, widow, mother, and the son or daughter of a predeceased son or daughter, among others. 
• A son’s son becomes a Class I heir only if his father died before the grandfather. A grandson whose father is alive is not a Class I heir. 

Section 10: Class I heirs take the property simultaneously, and the Section sets out how it is distributed among them. 

Section 19: When two or more heirs succeed together, they take the property per capita and as tenants in common, not as joint tenants. 

Section 29A – Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989: 

• This state amendment made daughters coparceners by birth in Tamil Nadu, with rights equal to sons, well before the 2005 central amendment. 

Key precedent – CWT v. Chander Sen (1986): 

• Property a son inherits from his father under Section 8 is his individual property, not HUF property held for his own sons.