Rajasthan High Court held that once the property inherited by a father under the statutory scheme was held to be his self-acquired property, and no pleadings were made to show that the property continued to be HUF/coparcenary property, a son could not derive his right on the property merely based on the relationship of father and son.

“…once succession has taken place under Section 8, the heirs succeed in their respective individual capacities and the property so devolved cannot be treated as joint family property merely on the basis of the earlier relationship of the parties.”

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act (the “Act”) could not be relied upon in isolation to create a coparcenary right in favour of a person or to characterize a property as ancestral. The property's character had to be determined independently by the source of acquisition, the nature of rights acquired by the predecessors and the rights devolved upon the successors.

The Court further opined that a civil court could not assume jurisdiction over a matter merely because it was couched in the form of a suit for declaration, cancellation and injunction. Until the khatedari rights of the petitioners were determined by the competent revenue court, the consequential relief sought before the civil court was not sustainable.

For context, the Court was hearing a first appeal against the judgment of the trial court wherein the suit instituted by the appellant, seeking declaration of his rights, permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deeds, was dismissed.

As per the appellant, an agricultural land was allotted to his grandfather which was devolved upon the 3 sons of his grandfather (respondents), including his father (respondent no. 1). It was alleged that, without his consent, the respondents alienated the land, by entering into sale deeds.

It was argued by the appellant that, him being a legitimate son of the respondent no. 1, had acquired coparcenary interest in the property by birth and hence, he was challenging the alienation of the property without his consent.

Suit was filed before the trial court which was dismissed in absence of declaration of appellant's khatedari rights by the competent revenue court. Hence, the present appeal was filed.

On the contrary, the respondents argued that appellant's claim of coparcenary right in the property rested only upon his relationship with the respondent no. 1, without any specific pleading regarding the property being an HUF or the appellant's grandfather being the Karta of the joint HUF. It was submitted that mere descent from the original allottee did not confer coparcenary right to the appellant, in the property.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that there was no pleadings in the plaint to the effect that the property continued to retain the character of HUF or coparcenary property that was in the hands of the respondents. In the absence of such pleadings, appellant's claim of coparcenary right, merely based on being the son of respondent no. 1, was not sustainable.

The Court held that the property could not be presumed to be an HUF or coparcenary merely because the appellant was descendant of the original allottee.

It was further observed that once succession took place under Section 8 of the Act, the property got devolved on the successors in their respective individual capacities and it could not be treated a joint family property merely based on earlier relationship of the parties. In this light, the Court held,

“In the absence of any specific pleading or material establishing that the property, either at the time of its acquisition or thereafter, formed part of a pre-existing Hindu Undivided Family or constituted a subsisting coparcenary estate, the property inherited by the appellant's father cannot be treated as joint Hindu family property merely because it had originally belonged to his father, Chutra Ram. The appellant, therefore, merely by virtue of being the son of one of the successors, could not claim an independent 1/9th coparcenary share therein by birth. For the aforesaid reasons, the appellant had no legally enforceable right to seek partition of the said property during the lifetime of his father.”

The Court also held that unless the appellant first established his own legal entitlement in the land, the challenge to its alienation could not arise. Since no declaration was obtained by the appellant from the competent revenue court regarding his khatedari rights, the civil court could not assume existence of such right to examine the validity of alienation by recorded khatedars.

In this background, the Court concluded that appellant's case had failed both on the substantive as well as jurisdictional grounds.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the trial court was upheld.

Hindu Person Cannot Claim Share In Grandparent's Property During Lifetime Of Parent: Delhi High Court

Title: Devaram v Khetaram & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 352

Click Here To Read/Download Order