Grandson Cannot Claim Birth Right in Property Father Inherited, Supreme Court Holds
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on 6 November 2026 held that a son has no right by birth in property that his father received from the grandfather's estate through a partition among the grandfather's Class I heirs. Once the father took that share, it became his exclusive property, and he could sell it. A Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal dismissed the appeal of a minor grandson in J. Rajesh (Minor) Through His Mother v. M. Kumaran (Dead) Through LRs and Others, reported as 2026 INSC 1208, and left two sale deeds of 1997 undisturbed.
The Court also held that Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 did not help the boy, because he was not a surviving coparcener when his grandfather's estate opened for succession. The judgment is marked reportable.
Case at a Glance
Case: J. Rajesh (Minor) Through His Mother and Natural Guardian J. Gomathi v. M. Kumaran (Dead) Through LRs and Others
Citation: 2026 INSC 1208 (Reportable)
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 7020 of 2012
Bench: Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal (author)
Date of Judgment: 6 November 2026
What Was Challenged: High Court judgment dated 11 August 2010 against a minor's suit for half share by partition in property his father got in a family partition
Outcome: Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs
The Question Behind the Headline
Under old Hindu law, a son became a coparcener in family property the moment he was born. Does that birth right survive when his father later receives a share of the grandfather's property through partition and sells it while still alive? The Supreme Court said no, relying on Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and a line of its own decisions.
Background of the Dispute
The Family Partition
The suit property is land measuring 1811 square feet, which belonged to the appellant's grandfather, N. Ramakrishnan. The grandfather's daughter, G. Lalitha, filed a partition suit, C.S. No. 1728 of 1993, which ended in a compromise decree dated 3 February 1994. Under that compromise, the appellant's father, the first defendant, received the suit property as his share.
The appellant was born on 6 January 1994, which was after the partition suit was filed in 1993 but before the compromise decree. His parents were married on 1 March 1993.
The Sales and the Minor's Suit
The father sold the property by two sale deeds dated 3 April 1997 and 17 April 1997 to the second and third defendants. In 1997, the minor, through his mother as natural guardian, filed Original Suit No. 1698 of 1997 before the City Civil Court, Chennai. He sought partition and possession of half the property, claiming it was ancestral and that he became a coparcener by birth. He did not challenge the compromise decree or the sale deeds.
The Courts Below
The trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition. The first appellate court set it aside, holding that under Section 8, a son who inherits from his father takes absolutely, and his own son has no right by birth in that property. The High Court judgment dated 11 August 2010 went against the appellant. The first defendant, the father, stayed ex parte at every stage and died in 2024.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Appellant's Case
Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the appellant became a coparcener in his grandfather's ancestral property at birth and that the decree was passed only after his birth, without making him a party. He relied on Section 29-A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989, which gives daughters coparcenary rights by birth and, under clause (iii), preserves the incidents of coparcenary ownership. He said this meant the father's share did not become self-acquired property.
He cited Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh and Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur, and argued that the purchasers cannot get a better right than their seller, and that the father, as karta, had not shown legal necessity for the sale.
Respondents' Case
Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel for the respondents, argued that this was a grandson claiming succession to his grandfather's property, which is governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, where a son's son is not a Class I heir. He relied on Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen, Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and Radha Bai v. Ram Narayan. He added that the appellant never challenged the partition decree, the father was alive when the suit was filed, the purchasers were innocent, and the suit was collusive.
The Supreme Court's Analysis
How Section 8 Governs the Estate
The Bench noted that on the grandfather's death, his property devolved on his Class I heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, who take simultaneously to the exclusion of all others. A son's son is not named in Class I. The Court said the old right of a son's son by birth in his grandfather's property, which existed under personal Hindu law before 1956, was not expressly saved by the legislature, and that Section 8 is a self-contained provision.
The Line of Precedent
The Court relied on Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen, which held that property devolving on a son under Section 8 is held by him in his individual capacity and not as karta of his own undivided family. Otherwise, there would be two classes of Class I heirs. It also followed Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, Bhanwar Singh v. Puran and Radha Bai v. Ram Narayan, and distinguished cases where the dispute was between Class I heirs themselves.
The Effect of the Partition
The Court held that the compromise decree of 3 February 1994 made each heir the exclusive owner of the share allotted. All heirs took as tenants in common and not as joint tenants, so the joint coparcenary did not continue. The property in the father's hands was no longer joint family property in relation to his son.
The express words of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot be ignored and must prevail.
Why Section 29-A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Did Not Help
On Section 6 and Section 29-A, the Court noted that the date of death of the grandfather was not disclosed, and the partition suit among Class I heirs was filed in 1993. The unamended Section 6 and the Tamil Nadu provision therefore did not apply on these facts. The appellant could not become a coparcener because he was not a surviving coparcener on the grandfather's death. The Court also noted that succession opened before the appellant was born, so there was no question of any interest devolving on him.
The Failure to Challenge the Decree and the Sales
The Court observed that the suit was filed long after the partition, when the divided shares had become the exclusive property of the co-sharers and had been sold by the appellant's father, during the father's lifetime. The appellant did not challenge the partition decree or the sale deeds and sought only partition on the basis of a birth right, which the Court found did not exist.
Operative Directions
The property of N. Ramakrishnan devolved on his Class I heirs under Section 8, and did not constitute Hindu undivided family property of the son's branch including the grandson.
The father's share under the compromise decree became his exclusive property, and the appellant had no right by birth in it.
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Section 29-A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989 were held not applicable on the facts.
No infirmity was found in the impugned judgment, so the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Pending applications were disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
The ruling gives purchasers of property a clear assurance. When a father takes a share of his own father's estate after a partition among the grandfather's heirs, the father holds it as his own, and a sale by him cannot be undone by his son on the plea of a birth right. The Court reached this result by holding that the 1956 Act displaces the old rule for property that devolves under Section 8.
For families in Tamil Nadu, it also shows the limits of Section 29-A. The 1989 amendment protects daughters' coparcenary rights where a coparcenary subsists, but it does not create one where the estate has already passed to Class I heirs and been partitioned. For litigators, the case is a reminder to plead and prove the date of the ancestor's death, and to challenge the partition decree and sale deeds directly if they are to be attacked.
Learn Partition and Property Suit Drafting With Into Legal World
This case turned on what the plaint did not challenge and what it did not plead, such as the compromise decree, the sale deeds and the date of death of the ancestor. If you want to draft partition suits, plaints and written statements that cover these points, learn it step by step in the Advanced Legal Drafting Certificate Course by Into Legal World.
Upgrade Your Legal Career With the Advanced Legal Drafting Certificate Course
Strong drafting wins cases. Master petitions, replies, applications and appeals with practical, court-ready training. Enrol in the Advanced Legal Drafting Certificate Course Today
Get Daily Judgment Updates
Join the Into Legal World WhatsApp channel for daily Supreme Court and High Court judgment updates: Join the WhatsApp Channel
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a Grandson Get a Right by Birth in Property His Father Inherited From the Grandfather?
No, on these facts. The Supreme Court held that property which devolves on a son under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is held by him individually, and his own son gets no right by birth in it.
Can a Father Sell Property He Received in a Family Partition?
Yes. After the partition, each heir became the exclusive owner of the share allotted and could alienate it, so the father's sales were not disturbed.
Why Did Section 29-A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Not Apply?
The Court found that the grandfather's date of death was not disclosed, the partition among Class I heirs was in 1993, and the appellant was not a surviving coparcener on the grandfather's death.
Is a Son's Son a Class I Heir Under Section 8?
No. The Class I list includes the son of a predeceased son, but does not include the son of a living son.
Is the Judgment Reportable?
Yes. The judgment in J. Rajesh (Minor) v. M. Kumaran (Dead), 2026 INSC 1208, is marked reportable.
Keywords
J. Rajesh v. M. Kumaran, 2026 INSC 1208, grandson birth right ancestral property, Section 8 Hindu Succession Act 1956, Section 29-A Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1989, coparcener by birth, partition and sale of ancestral property, Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen, Justice Sunita Agarwal, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court judgment 6 November 2026
Case Title: J. Rajesh (Minor) Through His Mother and Natural Guardian J. Gomathi v. M. Kumaran (Dead) Through LRs and Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 7020 of 2012
Citation: 2026 INSC 1208
Bench: Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal
Comments