Supreme Court rules grandson cannot claim birthright in partitioned grandfather property

The Supreme Court has ruled that a grandson cannot claim a birthright or coparcenary share in his grandfather's ancestral property after it has been partitioned among legal heirs, establishing that property inherited by a father following partition becomes his exclusive individual property.

Delivering the judgment on 6 November, a bench comprising Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal held that when property devolves upon Class I legal heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, joint coparcenary rights cease to exist. Writing the judgment, Justice Agarwal stated that Class I heirs take the property simultaneously to the exclusion of all other claimants, confirming that a grandson whose father is alive has no direct claim through succession.

The decision resolves a 29-year-old partition suit involving a 1,811-square-foot property in Chennai. The dispute began in 1997 when a mother filed a suit as natural guardian on behalf of her minor son, born in January 1994, seeking a half-share of the land. The property had already been divided amongst the grandfather's legal heirs under a compromise decree passed on 3 February 1994, following a 1993 partition suit instituted by the grandson's paternal aunt.

Dispute timeline and legal milestones

The father sold the 1,811-square-foot plot through two sale deeds in April 1997. The grandson contended that because the compromise decree occurred after his birth, he had already acquired coparcenary rights in the ancestral property. Rejection of this argument reinforces the stability of property titles across India, ensuring that valid sales by individual owners are protected from retroactive claims.

Applying principles established in the 1986 landmark case Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Chander Sen, the bench explained that property inherited by a son under Section 8 devolves in an individual capacity rather than as joint family property. The court further clarified that neither Section 29-A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment nor the unamended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act conferred coparcenary rights on the grandson under these circumstances.