The Supreme Court has ruled that a son cannot claim coparcenary rights in his grandfather’s ancestral property after it has been partitioned among the grandfather’s legal heirs, with the share allotted to his father becoming his exclusive property under the Hindu Succession Act , 1956.
The grandson could not subsequently claim a share in the property allotted to his father merely on the basis of his birth. A grandson whose father is alive is not included in the list of Class I heirs and cannot claim a direct share in his grandfather’s property through succession. Dismissing a 29-year-old partition suit filed on behalf of a minor son who claimed half of his grandfather’s property, the court held that once the property devolved upon the grandfather’s Class I legal heirs and was divided among them, the joint coparcenary ceased to exist. Rejecting the argument, the Supreme Court explained that when a Hindu male dies intestate, his property devolves upon the Class I heirs under the 1956 Act.
The court relied on its earlier ruling in Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs Chander Sen (1986), which held that property inherited by a son under the 1956 Act devolves upon him in his individual capacity and does not automatically become Hindu undivided family property as regards to his own son.
“With the partition, the property of the grandfather of the appellant ceased to be joint family property , in as much as all heirs succeeded the same as tenants in common and not as joint tenants, and joint coparcenary did not continue,” the judgment said.
The court also rejected the reliance on Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, and the unamended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, holding that neither provision could confer coparcenary rights on the appellant in the facts of the case.
