The Supreme Court has held that where property of a Hindu male dying intestate devolves on his Class I heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and is partitioned among them, the share falling to a son becomes his exclusive property in his individual capacity and cannot be treated as coparcenary property. It held that the son’s son cannot claim any right in such property on the premise of acquiring coparcenary rights by birth.

Referring to C.W.T. and others v. Chander Sen and others (1986) 3 SCC 567, the Court reiterated that a son’s son is not a Class I heir, and that property devolving under Section 8 is not HUF property in the son’s hands vis-à-vis his own son. It held that neither Section 6 of the Act nor Section 29-A inserted by the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 applied, since the appellant was not a surviving coparcener on his grandfather’s death.

A Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal observed, “…With the partition decree, the property of N. Ramachandran falling in the share of the father of the appellant became his exclusive property in his individual capacity and cannot be said to be coparcenary. There is no question of devolution of the property once partitioned and became 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…”.

“…In the codified Hindu Law of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the right of a son’s son in his grandfather’s property during the lifetime of his father which existed under the personal Hindu Law as enforced before the Act 1956, was not saved expressly by the legislature while enacting the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is to be read as a self-contained provision laying down the scheme of devolution of the property of the Hindu male dying intestate”, the Bench noted.

Advocate K. Paari Vendhan appeared for the appellant and Advocate K.K. Mani appeared for the respondent.

The suit property originally belonged to the appellant’s grandfather, N. Ramakrishnan. In 1993, his daughter filed a suit for partition, which was decreed on a compromise dated February 3, 1994, allotting 1,811 sq. ft. to the appellant’s father. The appellant was born on January 6, 1994. In April 1997, his father sold the property to the original defendant nos. 2 and 3. A suit was then filed on the minor’s behalf through his mother, seeking partition and possession of half share, without challenging the compromise decree or the sale deeds.

The City Civil Court, Chennai passed a preliminary decree, which the Madras High Court set aside in first appeal on August 11, 2010. The appellant contended that he became a coparcener by birth before the compromise decree, that Section 29-A preserved the coparcenary character of the property, and that his father could not alienate it without legal necessity. The purchasers contended that the grandson was excluded under Section 8 and the suit was collusive, the father having remained ex parte throughout.

The Bench observed that the right of a son’s son in his grandfather’s property during his father’s lifetime, which existed under pre-codified Hindu law, was not expressly saved by the Legislature, and that Section 8 is a self-contained provision. It held that on N. Ramakrishnan’s death, the property devolved on his Class I heirs as tenants in common, and with the partition, it ceased to be joint family property. Since succession opened before the appellant was born, there was no question of any interest devolving on him.

Cause Title: J. Rajesh (Minor) Through His Mother And Natural Guardian J. Gomathi v. M. Kumaran (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1208)

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocate K. Paari Vendhan

Respondents: Advocate K.K. Mani

Click here to read/download the Judgment



Tags: