No Birthright For Grandson In Property Inherited By Father: Supreme Court
No Birthright For Grandson In Property Inherited By Father: Supreme Court
M.U.H
11/11/202622
New Delhi: A grandson has no birthright over property inherited by his father after the partition of the grandfather's estate, the Supreme Court ruled, holding that such property devolves on the son in his personal capacity under the Hindu Succession Act and does not automatically become Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property.
Drawing a clear distinction between succession and coparcenary, the Apex court held that a son inheriting property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act takes it in his personal capacity, and not as karta (head) of a HUF. It said reading an HUF character into such inheritance would defeat the express language of the Act, and disturb the uniform treatment accorded to Class I heirs.
On November 6, a bench comprising Justices Augustine George Masih and Sunita Agarwal dismissed an appeal filed by a minor through his mother. The bench held that the property in question had lost its coparcenary character after partition, and could not be claimed as joint family property.
“It would be difficult to hold that the property which devolved on a Hindu under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act would be HUF in his hand vis-à-vis his own son, as that would amount to creating two classes among the heirs mentioned in Class I — the male heirs in whose hands it will be joint Hindu family property vis-à-vis a son — and female heirs, with respect to whom no such concept could be applied or contemplated,” said the bench.
The bench added that the express words of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot be ignored and must prevail.
To counter the appellant's claim that he acquired a share in his grandfather's property by birth as a coparcener, the bench noted that the unamended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provided for the devolution of a male Hindu's interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property by survivorship upon the surviving coparceners.
The bench noted that in this case, the date of death of the grandfather N Ramakrishnan has not been indicated, and the suit for partition among Class I heirs was filed in 1993. Evidently, provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or Section 29(A) inserted by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989, would have no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. “From this perspective as well, the appellant cannot become a coparcener, as he was not a 'surviving coparcener' on the death of N Ramakrishnan,” said the bench.
The bench noted that N Ramakrishnan's property had already been partitioned among his Class I heirs, with each share becoming the exclusive property of the respective co-sharer. Despite this, and without challenging either the partition decree or the sale deeds executed by his father during his lifetime, the appellant had filed a partition suit in 1997, claiming a birthright as a coparcener, it added.
The bench finally said that in view of the general rule of succession in the case of property of a male dying intestate, under the provisions of Chapter II of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of N Ramakrishnan devolved upon the Class I heirs in the order of succession specified therein, and they shall take the property simultaneously to the exclusion of all other heirs.
“With the partition decree, the share of the property of N Ramachandran (the grandfather of the appellant) going to the father of the appellant, became his exclusive property in his individual capacity, and cannot be said to be coparcenary,” the bench noted.
“There is no question of devolution of a property once partitioned, which had become exclusive individual property of the first respondent upon the appellant herein, so as to recognise his right on the premise of attaining coparcenary rights with his birth. For aforementioned reasons, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment,” said the bench, adding that the appeal, thus, failed and hence stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
The appellant in the present case had sought partition and possession of a half share in a property, measuring 1,811 sq ft, in Chennai. He claimed it was joint family property belonging to his grandfather, which had been inherited by him along with his father. The father sold the property through two sale deeds in 1997 to third parties after receiving it under a compromise decree in a 1993 partition suit filed by his sister.
The lower court granted a preliminary decree of partition, but the first appellate court and the Madras High Court set it aside. It was held that the father had become the absolute owner of the share allotted to him. The Apex court upheld this view.
