MP High Court: Sons Cannot Claim Share In Land Of Father During His Lifetime

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has reiterated that sons born after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force cannot claim a “birth right” in ancestral property while their father is alive. Dismissing a second appeal filed by a wife and her two sons, the Court held that land a man receives in partition from his own father becomes his self-acquired property, leaving his family with no claim over it during his lifetime.

Justice Ashish Shroti delivered the order on October 26, 2026, after reserving it on October 16, in Second Appeal No. 264 of 2015, titled Prembai and Others vs Ramswaroop and Others.

The dispute concerned 5.908 hectares of land across 13 survey numbers in village Baskhedi, Guna district. It was undisputed that the land was ancestral property in the hands of defendant no. 1, husband of the first plaintiff and father of the other two.

The family filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of title and possession and a permanent injunction. They claimed that on July 21, 2010, he threatened to sell the land and give them no share. Since the property was ancestral, they argued, they had a right in it from birth and he could not sell it.

While the suit was pending, he sold part of the land to defendant no. 3 through a sale deed dated April 20, 2011. The plaintiffs amended their plaint, added the buyer as a party and sought a declaration that the sale deed was null and void. The buyer argued that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which governs transfers during litigation, did not apply as her land was not in the original plaint.

The Fourth Civil Judge Class-I, Guna dismissed the suit on May 17, 2012, relying on the High Court’s earlier ruling in Chandrakanta v. Ashok Kumar. The First Additional District Judge, Guna upheld that decision on May 16, 2015, after which the family approached the High Court.

Appearing for the appellants, advocate Ashish Shrivastava accepted that the family might not claim a share in the father’s lifetime. He argued, however, that the father could not sell the land in a manner that defeated their right to inherit it after his death. Government Advocate Rajendra Jain appeared for the State.

Justice Shroti noted that the wife could not be counted as a coparcener. “The plaintiff no.1 being the wife of defendant no.1, could not come within the category of coparceners,” the Court observed.

On the sons’ claim, the Court relied on Section 4 of the 1956 Act, which overrides older Hindu law and customs, and on Uttam v. Saubhag Singh, affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Summing up, the Court said: “after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, the theory of birth right does not exist, and son gets share in the property only after death of his father.” It explained that when an ancestor dies after the Act, a partition is deemed to take place by operation of law before his death. The property then stops being joint family property, and heirs hold it as tenants-in-common.

The Court turned to the family’s own pleadings. In the plaint, the plaintiffs themselves had stated that the father got the suit land in partition from his own father. “Meaning thereby, the property was received by defendant no.1 and became his self-acquired property on partition,” the Court said, adding that during his lifetime the plaintiffs “could not have claimed any share in the property.”

The Court therefore upheld the appellate court’s view that the land was not coparcenary property of the plaintiffs, “though for different reasons.” It held the appeal “devoid of any substantial question of law” and dismissed it.

Case Title: Prembai and Others vs. Ramswaroop and Others

Order Date: October 26, 2026

Bench: Justice Ashish Shroti