The Supreme Court has clarified that a son cannot claim coparcenary rights in his grandfather’s ancestral property once it has been partitioned among the grandfather’s legal heirs. The share allotted to his father becomes the father’s individual property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Legal experts explain that while grandchildren may have a birthright in ancestral coparcenary property, they do not automatically acquire rights in their grandparents’ self-acquired property. Similarly, property inherited by a parent under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act ordinarily becomes the parent’s individual property and does not automatically acquire the status of ancestral or Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property in the hands of the children. Grandchildren generally do not directly inherit their grandfather’s property if their parents are alive at the time of the grandfather’s death.The judgment makes it clear that simply because the property originally belonged to a grandparent doesn't mean the grandchildren automatically have a right to it. Their entitlement will be based on the manner the property was acquired, inherited and held and whether it continued to be part of a joint Hindu family or coparcenary,
The case
The Supreme Court has ruled that a son cannot claim coparcenary rights in his grandfather’s ancestral property after it has been partitioned among the grandfather’s legal heirs, with the share allotted to his father becoming his exclusive property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Dismissing a 29-year-old partition suit filed on behalf of a minor son who claimed half of his grandfather’s property, the court held that once the property devolved upon the grandfather’s Class I legal heirs and was divided among them, the joint coparcener ceased to exist. The grandson could not subsequently claim a share in the property allotted to his father merely on the basis of his birth. The case originated in 1997 when the appellant, the grandson, was still a minor and his mother, acting as his natural guardian, filed a suit seeking partition and possession of half of a 1,811-square-foot property in Chennai. He claimed that the property originally belonged to his grandfather and that he had acquired a coparcenary interest in it by birth. However, the property had already been divided among his grandfather’s legal heirs following a partition suit instituted in 1993 by the appellant’s paternal aunt. A compromise decree was passed on February 3, 1994, under which the appellant’s father, who was one of the legal heirs, received a share measuring 1,811 square feet. He subsequently sold the property through two sale deeds executed in April 1997.
{{/usCountry}}The Supreme Court has ruled that a son cannot claim coparcenary rights in his grandfather’s ancestral property after it has been partitioned among the grandfather’s legal heirs, with the share allotted to his father becoming his exclusive property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Dismissing a 29-year-old partition suit filed on behalf of a minor son who claimed half of his grandfather’s property, the court held that once the property devolved upon the grandfather’s Class I legal heirs and was divided among them, the joint coparcener ceased to exist. The grandson could not subsequently claim a share in the property allotted to his father merely on the basis of his birth. The case originated in 1997 when the appellant, the grandson, was still a minor and his mother, acting as his natural guardian, filed a suit seeking partition and possession of half of a 1,811-square-foot property in Chennai. He claimed that the property originally belonged to his grandfather and that he had acquired a coparcenary interest in it by birth. However, the property had already been divided among his grandfather’s legal heirs following a partition suit instituted in 1993 by the appellant’s paternal aunt. A compromise decree was passed on February 3, 1994, under which the appellant’s father, who was one of the legal heirs, received a share measuring 1,811 square feet. He subsequently sold the property through two sale deeds executed in April 1997.
{{/usCountry}}Also Read: Grandchildren cannot lay claim to grandparents’ property if parent is alive: Delhi High CourtLast year as well, the Delhi High Court’s judgement in the matter of Kritika Jain v. Rakesh Jain and Ors., reaffirms that grandchildren do not have a right on the self-acquired property of the grandparents, when the parents are alive. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 deals with the succession of a Hindu male who dies intestate. Under the Act, the property of such Hindu male passes to his Class I heirs which are his son, daughter, widow and mother. The specified heirs of any predeceased son or daughter also come into the succession.
This is what legal experts have to say
It is crucial to bear in mind that where a property devolves upon a legal heir under Section 8 it becomes the individual property of that heir and does not automatically become ancestral or Hindu Undivided Family property in the hands of his children. “The children, therefore, do not acquire a share in such property by birth. The situation is different where the property is still part of the joint Hindu coparcenary and in that case the children may have a right by birth. Children of a predeceased son or daughter will of course inherit their parent's share in the property of the grandparent,” said Sunil Tyagi, Managing Partner, Zeus Law.
Also Read: Pautra-Pautri vs Nati-Natin: Can daughters’ children claim a share in their grandfather’s property in Haryana?These judgments make it clear that simply because the property originally belonged to a grandparent doesn't mean the grandchildren automatically have a right to it. Their entitlement will be based on the manner the property was acquired, inherited and held and whether it continued to be part of a joint Hindu family or coparcenary, he added.Bhargav KS, Managing Partner at K.S & B.K.S Law Associates, Bengaluru, explains that the property’s legal character matters: merely calling it ‘ancestral’ does not establish a birthright. Second, grandchildren may have rights by birth in ancestral coparcenary property, but not in their grandparents’ self-acquired property. Third, property inherited by a parent under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act ordinarily becomes that parent’s individual property, without a birthright for their children. The reported ruling applies this distinction; it should not be read as saying that every partition destroys grandchildren’s rights. The source of ownership and the manner of inheritance are therefore decisive, he says. Under Hindu law, grandchildren may claim a share in ancestral coparcenary property where the legal requirements are satisfied. They may also receive property through a valid will or gift, or inherit a deceased grandparent’s property through a parent who predeceased that grandparent, subject to the applicable succession rules. However, they have no birthright in a grandparent’s self-acquired property. Where their parent is alive, they ordinarily cannot claim directly through that parent under intestate succession. Nor can they demand a birthright in property their parents inherited individually under Section 8, he explains.
Families should examine title deals, chain of inheritance
Families should first examine title deeds, the chain of inheritance, earlier partition deeds and court decrees rather than rely on descriptions such as ‘ancestral property’. Identify who legally owns the property and whether anyone already holds an enforceable share. “Record family arrangements clearly and register documents wherever legally required. Owners should execute properly drafted and witnessed wills, while grandchildren should obtain independent advice before signing releases, consent terms or settlements. Where an existing decree or sale affects an asserted right, seek timely advice on whether it must be specifically challenged; a partition claim alone may be insufficient,” said Bhargav KS.