Hindu Succession Act: Can A Grandson Claim Coparcenary Rights In Property Inherited By Father? Supreme Court Says No

The Supreme Court has held that a son does not acquire a right by birth in property inherited by his father from his grandfather under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly where the property has already been partitioned among the grandfather's legal heirs.

A Bench of Justices Augustine George Masih and Sunita Agarwal clarified that when a Hindu male dies intestate, his property devolves upon the Class I heirs specified under the Act. A son inheriting such property takes it in his individual capacity and not as the Karta of his own Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).

Court emphasised that the Schedule to Section 8 includes the son and the son of a predeceased son as Class I heirs, but does not include the son of a living son. Consequently, a grandson cannot claim a birthright in his grandfather's property merely because his father inherited it.

Can a grandson claim coparcenary rights in property inherited by his father?

Court was dealing with an appeal filed by a minor, through his mother and natural guardian J Gomathi, seeking a half share in a property owned by his father. The appellant claimed that the property was ancestral and that he had acquired coparcenary rights in it by birth.

Court also examined the applicability of Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, which confers equal coparcenary rights on daughters in a Joint Hindu Family.

It clarified that the amendment does not extend coparcenary rights to male claimants seeking a share in property that has already been partitioned and converted into individual ownership.

"This provision does not apply to a male claimant seeking to establish coparcenary rights in property that has already been partitioned and transformed into individual ownership," the Bench said.

Court further held that the appellant, being a male and not a daughter, could not claim the benefits of coparcenary rights conferred upon daughters under the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989. It also noted that the property had already lost its coparcenary character following the partition.

Case Background

The original suit was instituted in 1997 on behalf of the appellant, who was then a minor, through his mother. He sought partition and possession of a half share in a property measuring 1,811 square feet.

The appellant claimed that the suit property originally belonged to his grandfather, late N Ramakrishnan, and had devolved upon him and his father, who was the first defendant in the suit.

The dispute arose after the appellant's father sold the property to defendants 2 and 3 through two sale deeds executed in 1997.

The father had acquired the property following a compromise in a partition suit instituted by his sister, G Lalitha, in 1993. Under the settlement, which culminated in a compromise decree in 1994, the property falling to his share became his exclusive property.

The Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, passed a preliminary decree for partition. However, the first appellate court set aside the decree, holding that the property had originally belonged to the father of the first defendant and that the latter had become its absolute owner upon partition.

Relying on the scheme of succession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the appellate court held that a son inheriting property from his father becomes its absolute owner and his own son does not acquire any right by birth in it.

It further held that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act was not attracted as the partition had already taken place and the heirs of the original owner had become exclusive owners of their respective shares.

The high court upheld this view, holding that the appellant had not acquired any right by birth in the property that came into his father's hands following the partition and was, therefore, not entitled to seek its partition.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant's counsel argued that the half share recognised by the trial court ought to be protected. It was contended that the high court had incorrectly treated the allotment of property under a family partition as conclusive proof of the father's individual ownership, without adequately considering the property's ancestral character, the appellant's birth and the statutory scheme applicable in Tamil Nadu.

It was further argued that the purchasers could not acquire a better title than their vendor, the appellant's father.

The counsel also submitted that the father could not have transferred the entire property without first determining the appellant's share as a coparcener. It was argued that the property obtained through partition continued to be coparcenary property held by the father as its Karta.

The respondent's counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the claim involved a grandson seeking succession to his grandfather's property, which was governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. It was argued that neither Section 6 of the Act nor Section 29-A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act was applicable.

After considering the submissions, the Bench explained that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, lays down the scheme of succession to the property of a Hindu male dying intestate.

It noted that under the Act, the property of a Hindu male dying intestate devolves upon the Class I heirs specified in the Schedule. These include the son, daughter and son of a predeceased son, among others, but do not specifically include the son of a living son.

The Bench then considered whether a son inheriting property under Section 8 does so in his individual capacity or as the Karta of his own undivided family.

Answering the question, it observed:

"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."

The Bench further held that Section 8 is a self-contained provision governing the devolution of property belonging to a Hindu male dying intestate.

"Consequently, upon death of N Ramakrishnan, the grandfather of the appellant herein, the property devolved on his Class I Schedule heirs as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and did not constitute HUF property of son consisting of his own branch including the grandson," Court observed.

It noted that the surviving sons and daughters of N Ramakrishnan each became entitled to one share as Class I heirs.

The partition among the heirs was initiated following the grandfather's death, with the filing of a partition suit in 1993. A settlement was subsequently reached, and under the compromise decree of 1994, each heir became the exclusive owner of the property allotted to their respective share.

The Bench held that the appellant's father consequently became the exclusive owner of the property falling to his 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 said.

Court also noted that the succession had opened upon the grandfather's death, before the appellant's birth. Since the partition proceedings had already commenced in 1993, there was no question of any interest in the suit property devolving upon the appellant by birth.

The Bench reiterated that the express language of Section 8 could not be ignored and that neither Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act nor Section 29-A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act applied to the facts of the case.

"There is no question of devolution of the property once partitioned and became exclusive individual property first respondent upon the appellant herein so as to recognise his right on the premise of attaining coparcenary rights with his birth," the Bench said.

Finding no infirmity in the impugned judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: J Rajesh (Minor) Thr His Mother Vs M Kumaran (Dead) Thr LRs & Ors

Bench: Justices Augustine George Masih and Sunita Agarwal

Date of Judgment: November 06, 2026