Hindu Grandchildren Whose Parents Are Alive Does Not Get Share In Property of Grandfather Upon His Death: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court rejected the plaint of a daughter claiming share in the property of her deceased grandfather against her father and paternal aunt stating that grandchildren, who are not children of a predeceased child, are not included in the list of Class-I heirs under Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed, “It is pertinent to note that grandchildren, who are not children of a predeceased child, are not included in the list of Class-I heirs. Therefore, if Section 8 is correctly appreciated, the suit property cannot be deemed to have devolved on the plaintiff upon the death of her paternal grandfather, her father being alive at the time of death of the grandfather. The suit property devolved solely on the defendants and their mother. Thereafter, upon the death of the defendants’ mother, her share in the suit property devolved similarly, under Section 15 (1) (a) of the HSA, solely on the defendants.”

Advocate Aparna Jain represented the Plaintiff, while Advocate Vineet Jindal represented the Defendants.

Case Brief

An application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC was filed by the Defendants seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that no cause of action was disclosed.

The Plaint was filed by the daughter against her father and paternal aunt for the partition of property. The case set up in the plaint was that the property was purchased by the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff, thereby acquiring absolute rights and title over the same. The Plaintiff contended that the defendants kept on avoiding her on one pretext or the other, tried to alienate and create third party rights in the property.

While, the Defendants contended that the plaint ought to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action for institution of the suit. It was also contended that the property devolved solely on the defendants under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim to have any right over the property.

Court’s Observation

The Court noted that the provision under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC empowers the Court to reject a plaint, where it does not disclose a cause of action. Therefore, the question for consideration before the High Court was whether the plaint discloses a cause of action i.e. the foundational facts to claim a relief from the Court.

The High Court underscored that the entire case of the plaintiff seems to premise on the assumption that the suit property is her ancestral property.

“Under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, prior to the enactment of the HSA, property inherited by a person from his father, father’s father, or father’s father’s father would be ancestral property in his hands and thus, a right to a share in the same would vest in his son, the moment he is born…However, the enactment of the HSA brought about a drastic change in the law relating to intestate succession amongst Hindus in India”, the Court said.

The Court referred to Section 8 of the HSA which provides for rules of succession in respect of the property of a male Hindu dying intestate.

“It is pertinent to note that grandchildren, who are not children of a predeceased child, are not included in the list of Class-I heirs. Therefore, if Section 8 is correctly appreciated, the suit property cannot be deemed to have devolved on the plaintiff upon the death of her paternal grandfather, her father being alive at the time of death of the grandfather”, the Court held.

The High Court observed that on an appreciation of the provision under Section 8 of the HSA, it was concluded that the share of father in the suit property is his absolute property, and the daughter (plaintiff) does not have any right in the same. The right asserted by the plaintiff is not recognized by the rules of succession as per Section 8 of the HSA.

Accordingly, the plaint was rejected.

Cause Title: Kritika Jain V. Rakesh Jain (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7991)

Appearance:

Plaintiff: Advocate Aparna Jain

Defendants: Advocates Vineet Jindal, Urvashi Parkash, Richa Pandey and Akshita Thakur

Click here to read/download Order