A minor cannot seek partition of property post valid family partition among ancestors as it lacks legal foundation under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.

ORDER :

1. Challenging the order passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 1 and 3 in the suit. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not in consonance with the settled principles of law. He placed reliance on Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the same is extracted hereunder:

3. According to the revision petitioners, the suit has been instituted by a minor plaintiff claiming that the first defendant is his grandfather, the second defendant is his father and the third defendant is his paternal uncle, while the remaining defendants are official witnesses. It is the specific case of the revision petitioners that a family partition had already taken place on 25.03.1980 among the first defendant (grandfather) and defendants 2 and 3 (father and uncle). Once such a partition had been effected, the claim made by the respondent/plaintiff is contrary to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, more particularly Section 8 thereof.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff does not fall within the category of Class-I legal heirs as enumerated under the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act. A grandson does not acquire any independent right to seek partition of property already partitioned among his grandfather, father and uncle. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar and others, 2025 (4) CTC 168 and relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:

17. It cannot be disputed that the properties divided among Defendant No.1 and his brothers through partition deed dated 09.05.1986, are joint family properties. However, as per Hindu law, after partition, each party gets a separate and distinct share and this share becomes their self-acquired property and they have absolute rights over it and they can sell, transfer, or bequeath it as they wish. Accordingly, the properties bequeathed through partition, become the self- acquired properties of the respective sharers.

18. Apparently, the plaintiffs did not question the partition deed (Ex. P1) effected among the brothers. It states that the respective parties shall hereinafter enjoy the properties allotted to their share with a right to sell, lease, gift, encumber, etc. The partition deed further reveals that the suit property was allotted to C. Thippeswamy, one of the brothers of Defendant No.1; and Defendant No.1 was allotted 10 acres of land, which was different from the suit property measuring 7 acres 20 Guntas allotted to the said C. Thippeswamy. It also proceeds to state that after the death of the father Channappa, the joint family became unmanageable due to difference of opinion among the members and therefore, they decided that it was not good to stay together and partitioned the lands allotted to them. Thus, the intention of the parties and the recitals in the partition deed establish that the parties wanted to go their separate ways and did not want the property to remain as joint family property.

20. Regarding the doctrine of blending of self-acquired property with joint family, it is settled law that property separate or self- acquired of a member of joint Hindu family may be impressed with the character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by the owner into the common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim therein but to establish such abandonment a clear intention to waive separate rights must be established. From the mere fact that other members of the family w