/
Supreme Court: a grandson has no birthright in property his father got on partition
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Augustine George Masih and Sunita Agarwal held that a son who inherits under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 holds the property individually, so his own son cannot claim a birthright in it. A 1997 partition suit was dismissed.
A
5 min
The Supreme Court has held that a grandson cannot claim a birthright in property that his father received when his grandfather's estate was divided. A bench of Justices Augustine George Masih and Sunita Agarwal dismissed an appeal by a man who, as a minor, had sued in 1997 for half of a piece of land that his father sold that year. The case is J Rajesh, a minor through his mother and guardian J Gomathi, against M Kumaran, who died during the proceedings and is represented by his legal representatives. The judgment was reported on 10 November 2026, and the order carried a date of 7 November. This report is for information only and is not legal advice.
The facts: a 1994 partition and a 1997 sale
The land had belonged to the appellant's grandfather, N Ramakrishnan. In 1993 his Class I heirs, the closest relatives named in the Act, filed a suit for partition of his estate. It ended in a compromise decree in 1994, which gave the land in question to the appellant's father. The appellant was born in 1994.
In 1997 the father sold the land to two purchasers by sale deeds. The same year the appellant, through his mother, sued for partition of a half share. He argued that the land was joint family property and that his father held it as the karta, the head of the family, so he could not sell it without legal necessity. He relied on Section 29A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989.
The City Civil Court in Chennai passed a preliminary decree for partition. The purchasers appealed, and the first appellate court set it aside, holding that a son who inherits under Section 8 takes the property absolutely and that his own son has no birthright in it. The Madras High Court agreed. The father took no part in the case and was ex parte until he died in 2024. The compromise decree and the sale deeds were never challenged.
What the Supreme Court held
The bench treated Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as a self-contained scheme for the property of a Hindu male who dies without a will. A son's son is not a Class I heir, so he gets no share in his grandfather's property under it. The court said the 1956 Act does not expressly preserve the grandson's right under the older personal law.
Following its earlier decision in CWT v Chander Sen, the bench held that a son who inherits under Section 8 holds the property individually and not as the karta of an undivided family. Relying on Bhanwar Singh v Puran and Radha Bai v Ram Narayan, it held that the Class I heirs took their shares as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. The joint family therefore did not continue after the partition, and the property stopped being joint family property.
| Point | Holding |
|---|---|
| Section 8 | A complete scheme for a man's property; a grandson is not a Class I heir |
| Father's share | Held individually, not as karta |
| Section 6 and Section 29A | Not applicable, because the grandson was not a surviving coparcener when the estate opened |
| Compromise decree and sale deeds | Never challenged, so they stand |
| Outcome | Appeal dismissed, no order as to costs |
What the ruling does not decide
The decision turns on its facts. Succession to the grandfather's estate opened before the appellant was born, and the suit was filed after the partition and during his father's lifetime. The court said Section 6 and the Tamil Nadu provision did not apply because the appellant was not a surviving coparcener when the grandfather died.
The reports of the judgment do not show a ruling on whether the sale was made for legal necessity, on whether the purchasers were innocent, or on whether the suit was collusive, although respondents argued those points. They also do not address cases in which succession opened on a different timeline, or property that is genuinely held in an undivided coparcenary. In those cases, the position under Section 6 and the rights of sons and daughters in joint family property are unchanged by this order. The ruling also leaves the sale deeds in place, which means the purchasers keep the land.
The background is the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which governs how the property of a Hindu who dies without a will passes on. Section 8 lists the heirs of a man in order, starting with Class I heirs, such as sons, daughters, the widow and the mother. A grandson becomes a Class I heir only by standing in the place of a parent who died before the grandfather, so a grandson whose father is alive is outside the first class. Section 6 deals with coparcenary property held jointly in a Hindu undivided family, and the 2005 amendment gave daughters the same rights in it as sons. The court's ruling does not change that: it says that once the grandfather's estate had been divided among his Class I heirs, each heir held his share individually, and the joint family in that property ended. People who are in a similar position should note that the court tied its conclusion to the dates of the succession, the partition and the birth of the grandson in this case.
The judges drew on a line of earlier rulings. The appellant cited Rohit Chauhan v Surinder Singh and Arshnoor Singh v Harpal Kaur, while the purchasers relied on Commissioner of Wealth Tax v Chander Sen, Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel v Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and Radha Bai v Ram Narayan. The bench's reasoning followed the second line. Chennai's trial court had found for the minor; the first appellate court and the Madras High Court disagreed, and the apex court now sides with them, with each side bearing its own costs.
Sources
About the Author
A
Amita Sahani
Staff Writer
Amita Sahani writes for Wirony. Every story under this byline is reviewed and approved by an editor before it is published, and corrections are made openly.
A
5 min
What did you think?
