Son Can’t Claim Coparcenary Share In Property Inherited By Father U/S 8 Hindu Succession Act Without HUF Plea: Rajasthan High Court

The Court was hearing a civil first appeal against a judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Pokhran, by which the appellant-plaintiff’s suit for declaration of rights, permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deeds over agricultural land was dismissed at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

A Bench of Justice Farjand Ali, while holding that succession under Section 8 operates in favour of heirs in their individual capacities, observed: “The appellant is not an heir who succeeded directly to the estate of Chutra Ram; rather, he is the son of one of the heirs who inherited a one-third share under Section 8. Consequently, the appellant cannot claim that a coparcenary interest accrued in his favour by birth in the share which had already devolved upon his father under the statutory scheme."

The Bench added: "In the absence of a specific plea and material establishing that the property was held as HUF/coparcenary property independently of such statutory succession, the appellant's mere relationship as grandson of Chutra Ram does not confer upon him a present right to seek partition or to challenge an alienation made by his father on the footing of an alleged pre-existing coparcenary interest.”

Advocate D.K. Godara appeared for the appellant. Advocate H.R. Soni appeared for the respondents.

Background

The Court was hearing a civil first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against a judgment by which the appellant’s suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of registered sale deeds was dismissed on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

The dispute concerned agricultural land in Jaisalmer. The appellant claimed that the land, originally allotted to his grandfather under Section 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, retained the character of ancestral/coparcenary property and that he had acquired an undivided share in it by birth.

The respondents opposed the appeal, contending that the grandfather died intestate and that his three sons, including the appellant’s father, inherited the property in equal shares under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. They also argued that no declaration of khatedari rights had been obtained from the competent revenue court.

Court’s Observations

The Court noted that the plaint did not contain the necessary foundation for claiming coparcenary rights.

The Court observed: “The appellant himself traces the title to the allotment made in favour of his grandfather, Chutra Ram. However, the plaint does not contain any specific averment that the allotment was made in favour of a Hindu Undivided Family or that Chutra Ram held the land as karta or on behalf of a joint Hindu family. There is also no pleading disclosing the existence of an HUF, its constitution or the manner in which the suit property allegedly formed part of such joint family estate.”

It added that a coparcenary claim cannot arise merely from genealogy.

The Court held: “A claim of coparcenary right is founded upon the existence of coparcenary property, and such a claim cannot be sustained merely from the genealogical relationship between the parties. The fact that the property originally belonged to a grandfather does not, by itself, establish that the property continued to retain the character of HUF or coparcenary property in the hands of his descendants.”

The Bench further held: “In the absence of any specific pleading or material establishing that the property, either at the time of its acquisition or thereafter, formed part of a pre-existing Hindu Undivided Family or constituted a subsisting coparcenary estate, the property inherited by the appellant's father cannot be treated as joint Hindu family property merely because it had originally belonged to his father, Chutra Ram. The appellant, therefore, merely by virtue of being the son of one of the successors, could not claim an independent 1/9th coparcenary share therein by birth. For the aforesaid reasons, the appellant had no legally enforceable right to seek partition of the said property during the lifetime of his father.”

Relying on Uttam v. Saubhag Singh & Ors. (2016), the Court said the distinction between property inherited under Section 8 and property already forming part of a coparcenary was significant.

The Court observed: “Where the property devolves upon a son under Section 8, he succeeds to it in his individual capacity unless some independent legal foundation exists for treating the property as part of a subsisting joint family estate. The mere fact that the property came to him from his father does not, in itself, confer a birthright upon his son.”

The Court also held that the appellant’s minority when succession opened did not alter the position.

The Court observed: “Minority neither changes the class of heirs nor postpones the vesting of the estate in the heirs entitled thereto. The one-third share inherited by the appellant's father accordingly vested in him under the statutory scheme.”

On maintainability, the Court held that the appellant’s challenge to the sale deeds depended on first establishing his own legal entitlement in the agricultural land.

The Court referred to Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania & Ors. (2019) and observed that where khatedari entitlement itself required determination by the competent revenue court, consequential relief before the civil court could not be sustained without such foundational declaration.

The Court held: “The appellant has not obtained any declaration from the competent revenue court recognising him as a khatedar or declaring an independent share in the suit land. His alleged khatedari right is itself unestablished. The civil court cannot assume the existence of such right merely to examine the validity of the sale deeds executed by the recorded khatedars.”

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and directed that the record be transmitted to the trial court. The stay petition and all pending applications were also disposed of.

Cause Title: Devaram v. Khetaram & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:40614)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocate D.K. Godara

Respondents: Advocates H.R. Soni, Harish Joshi, Tripti Soni, Narootam Soni and Jitendra Soni

Click here to read/download Judgment