Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court held that once the grandfather's property devolved on his Class I heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and was partitioned among them, the share allotted to the father became his exclusive property in his individual capacity, and that the grandson has no right by birth in such property.

A bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal held so while dismissing an appeal filed by a son who sought half share in land that his father had received in a partition of the grandfather's property, which the father had then sold.

The suit was filed in 1997 by the minor son (through his mother as natural guardian) seeking partition and possession of half share in land, pleading that the land was joint family property of his grandfather, inherited by the appellant's father (Defendant No 1/D1) and, through him, by the son (appellant).

The appellant's aunt had filed a suit for partition of his grandfather's property and the suit was decreed on the basis of a compromise made in 1994, under which D1 received the suit land. The appellant was born in 1994. D1 later sold the land to Defendant 2 (D2) and Defendant 3 (D3) through sale deeds in 1997. Thereafter, the City Civil Court (Chennai) passed a preliminary decree of partition against which the purchasers appealed. The First Appellate Court set aside the decree, holding that a son who inherits his father's property under Section 8 takes it absolutely, and that his own son has no right by birth in it.

In appeal, the Madras High Court held that “the plaintiff/appellant herein did not acquire right by birth in the property which came in the hands of his father by partition after the death of his grandfather and, hence he is not entitled to seek partition in the property.”

Aggrieved by the High Court's position, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, which noted that there is no challenge to the compromise decree of 1994 or the said sale deeds, and that the only relief sought was partition and possession of half share.

The Court framed the question as follows:

“Whether the appellant would be entitled to half share in the property of his father who is still alive and can seek a decree of partition on the premise of the property in question being ancestral/joint family property.?”

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant relied on Section 29A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 to argue that the compromise decree did not convert the father's share into self-acquired property, and that the father held it as karta of a coparcenary property. It was also argued that the purchasers could not acquire a greater right than their vendor, and that the father, who remained ex parte until his death in 2024, had not proved legal necessity for the sale. Reliance was placed on Rohit Chauhan v Surinder Singh and Arshnoor Singh v Harpal Kaur.

On the contrary, the respondent relied on CWT v Chander Sen, Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel v Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel, and Radha Bai v Ram Narayan, to submit that the case is of a grandson seeking succession to his grandfather's property, which is governed by Section 8, and that neither Section 6 nor Section 29-A is applicable. It was also submitted that the appellant had not challenged the compromise decree, that the purchasers were innocent, and that the suit was collusive.

Analysing the precedents the parties referred to, the bench referred to Chander Sen, and noted that when a son inherits property under Section 8, he takes it in his individual capacity and not as karta of his own undivided family. “Express words of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot be ignored and must prevail,” the bench reiterated.

It also referred to Bhanwar Singh v Puran, wherein a joint-coparcenary did not continue after partition among the heirs of the grandfather. Further reliance was placed on Radha Bai, where the grandson or granddaughter was held to be “clearly excluded from heirs in Class I.”

Applying the aforesaid, the Court held as follows:

“A son's son is not mentioned as an heir under Class I of the Schedule, and, therefore he could not get any right in the property of his grandfather under the provision. In the codified Hindu Law of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the right of a son's son in his grandfather's property during the lifetime of his father which existed under the personal Hindu Law as enforced before the Act 1956, was not saved expressly by the legislature while enacting the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is to be read as a self-contained provision laying down the scheme of devolution of the property of the Hindu male dying intestate.”

On the facts of the case, the bench held that on the death of grandfather the property devolved on his Class I heirs and “did not constitute HUF property of son consisting of his own branch including the grandson.” Under the compromise decree, “each of the heir became exclusive owner of the property falling within his/her share.”

“With the partition, the property of N. Ramakrishnan the grandfather of the appellant ceased to be joint family property, inasmuch as, all heirs succeeded the same as tenant in common and not as joint tenant, and joint coparcenary did not continue,” it observed.

Further, the Court observed that succession opened on the death of grandfather, before the appellant was born, and the partition suit was filed in 1993, so “there is no question of devolution of interest in the suit property upon the appellant.”

With regards to the appellant's claim of becoming a coparcener by birth, the bench noted that unamended Section 6 provided for devolution by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary. The grandfather's date of death was not indicated, and the partition suit among Class I heirs was filed in 1993. It held that “evidently the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or Section 29(A) inserted by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989 would have no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” It further observed that the appellant cannot become a coparcener as he was not a 'surviving coparcener' on the death of grandfather.

The bench also took note of the fact that the suit was filed in 1997 much after the partition and during the father's lifetime, without challenging the partition decree or the sale deeds executed by the father, on the premise of inheritance as coparcener by birth.

Applying aforesaid, the Supreme Court did not find any infirmity in the High Court's ruling and dismissed the appeal.

“Finally, in view of the general rule of succession in the case of property of a male dying intestate, under the provisions of Chapter II of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of N. Ramakrishnan (grandfather of the appellant) devolved upon the Class I heirs in the order of succession specified therein, and they shall take the property simultaneously to the exclusion of all other heirs. With the partition decree, the property of N. Ramachandran falling in the share of the father of the appellant became his exclusive property in his individual capacity and cannot be said to be coparcenary. There is no question of devolution of the property once partitioned and became exclusive individual property of the first respondent upon the appellant herein so as to recognise his right on the premise of attaining coparcenary rights with his birth. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.”

“The appeal, thus, failed and hence stands dismissed with no order as to costs. All pending applications are also disposed of in the above terms.”

Appearances:

For Appellant: Mrs Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr Adv; Mr Vishal Sinha, Adv; Mr Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Adv; Ms Samprity Kar, Adv; Ms Indumugi C, Adv; Mr K Paari Vendhan, AOR

For Respondents: Mr KK Mani, AOR; Ms T Archana, Adv; Mr Rajeev Gupta, Adv


Tags: