The Supreme Court has made it clear that if a grandfather’s property has already been divided among his legal heirs, a grandson cannot claim a share in it solely by virtue of his birth.
A bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal dismissed a partition suit filed in 1997 on behalf of a minor grandson.
The judgment was delivered on 6 November, and details emerged on 11 November. The case concerned a house/plot measuring 1,811 square feet in Chennai.
The grandson claimed that he had acquired coparcenary rights in his grandfather’s property by birth and should therefore be given a share. The suit was filed on behalf of the minor grandson.
The Supreme Court said, “This will not be the case because, under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the share inherited by the father had already become his individual property.”
How the dispute began
The property, measuring 1,811 square feet, was in Chennai. Its original owner was the grandson’s grandfather. The grandfather’s daughter (the grandson’s paternal aunt) filed a partition suit in 1993. The property was partitioned through a settlement in February 1994, and the grandson’s father received a share. The father sold his share through two sale deeds in April 1997.
The grandson was born in January 1994. Through his mother, he filed a suit in 1997, claiming that he too should receive half the share and that he had not been included in the earlier partition.
Supreme Court dismisses petition
The Supreme Court dismissed the partition suit filed in 1997 on behalf of the minor grandson. The court said that the grandson could not claim an independent share in the property solely by virtue of his birth.
The court said that the grandfather’s property passed to his Class I legal heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, after his death. Class I heirs include a son, daughter, wife and mother, among others; the grandson does not directly fall into this category.
The share received by the father after the partition became his personal property and did not remain joint family property.
Reference to the 1986 judgment
The Supreme Court relied on its 1986 judgment, which held that property received by a son under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act becomes his individual property.
Such property does not automatically become joint family property in relation to his children. On this basis, the court dismissed the grandson’s claim.
The bench also rejected reliance on Section 29-A of the Tamil Nadu amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1989, and the erstwhile Section 6 of the 1956 Act.
The court said that, in the circumstances of the case, neither provision helped the appellant.
How the case reached the Supreme Court
The trial court passed a preliminary decree in favour of partition. The first appellate court overturned the decision.
The Madras High Court upheld the first appellate court’s judgment in August 2010. The case then reached the Supreme Court in 2011 through a special leave petition.