Can a grandson claim a share by birth in property inherited by his father from his grandfather? Does property received through a family partition automatically become ancestral property in the hands of the father?
The Supreme Court of India has clarified this important question in a recent judgment. It ruled that when a grandfather’s property devolves upon his Class I legal heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and is subsequently partitioned, the share allotted to the father becomes his exclusive property. His son cannot claim a birthright in it merely because he is his father’s child.
The ruling in J. Rajesh (Minor) Through His Mother and Natural Guardian J. Gomathi v. M. Kumaran (Dead) Through LRs & Ors., 2026 INSC 1208, is particularly relevant to family property disputes involving inheritance, partition and claims of ancestral ownership.
The Case: How Did the Dispute Begin?
The dispute concerned 1,811 square feet of land originally belonging to N. Ramakrishnan, the grandfather of the appellant, J. Rajesh.
Following the grandfather’s death, his daughter G. Lalitha filed a partition suit in 1993 seeking her share in the family properties. The dispute ended in a compromise decree dated 3 February 1994, under which the disputed 1,811 sq. ft. property was allotted to her brother, M. Kumaran, the appellant’s father.
Rajesh was born on 6 January 1994, shortly before the compromise decree.
In April 1997, Kumaran sold the property to two purchasers through registered sale deeds. Subsequently, Rajesh, represented by his mother and natural guardian, filed a suit seeking partition and possession of a half share in the property.
His argument was that the property was ancestral or joint family property inherited by his father from his grandfather and that he was entitled to a share by birth.
How Did the Case Progress Through the Courts?
The City Civil Court, Chennai, initially passed a *preliminary decree granting partition.
However, the purchasers challenged this decision. The First Appellate Court set aside the preliminary decree, holding that property inherited by the father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act belonged to him in his individual capacity and did not give his son a birthright.
The Madras High Court upheld this view, observing that the grandson had not acquired any right by birth in the property allotted to his father.
Rajesh then approached the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the High Court’s decision.
*preliminary decree -A preliminary decree is a court order that determines the rights and respective shares of the parties in a property dispute, while leaving the actual division of the property for a later final decree.What Was the Main Legal Question?
The Supreme Court examined whether a son could claim a half share as a coparcener by birth in property that his living father had received through partition of his grandfather’s estate.
The respondents argued that the property had *devolved upon the grandfather’s Class I heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Once partitioned, each heir became the exclusive owner of the share allotted to them. Therefore, the grandson had no independent birthright in his father’s share.
*devolved - Devolution of property means the transfer or passing of property from one person to another by operation of law, such as through inheritance or succession.Understanding Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 8 lays down the general rules of succession when a Hindu male dies without leaving a will. This is known as dying intestate.
Under this provision, the property passes first to the Class I heirs listed in the Schedule to the Act.
Class I heirs include the widow, son, daughter and mother, among others. The son of a living son is not independently included as a Class I heir. However, the son of a predeceased son is included.
This distinction is important. A grandson cannot claim a direct share in his grandfather’s estate as a Class I heir when his father is alive.
When the property is distributed among the Class I heirs, each receives their respective share under the law.
The Supreme Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court relied on established judgments, including C.W.T. v. Chander Sen (1986), Bhanwar Singh v. Puran and Radha Bai v. Ram Narayan, to examine the nature of the property and the grandson’s claim.
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the grandfather’s property had devolved upon his Class I legal heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.
The Court’s key findings were:
- Following partition, the share allotted to M. Kumaran became his exclusive individual property.
- Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and Section 29A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act did not grant the grandson any birthright in the circumstances of this case.
- The grandson, Rajesh, could not claim a birthright in the property merely because he was Kumaran’s son.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision that the grandson had no right to a share in the property.
The Court reaffirmed that Section 8 governs the devolution of a Hindu male’s property when he dies intestate.
What Does This Judgment Mean for Property Owners?
The ruling clarifies that property inherited by a father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act becomes his individual property, and his children do not automatically acquire a birthright in it.
However, this principle does not apply to all ancestral coparcenary properties, where children may have rights by birth. The distinction depends on how the property was acquired and its legal character.
Case details:
J. Rajesh (Minor) Through His Mother and Natural Guardian J. Gomathi v. M. Kumaran (Dead) Through LRs & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 7020 of 2012 | 2026 INSC 1208
Decision dated: 6 November 2026
Court: Supreme Court of India