Grandson Has No Birthright in Property Inherited by Father Under S.8 of Hindu Succession Act; Suit for Partition While Father is Alive Devoid of Cause of Action: Delhi High Court - 2025-09-15

Delhi High Court Rejects Grandson's Partition Suit, Affirms Property Inherited by Father Under HSA is Self-Acquired

New Delhi: In a significant ruling on Hindu succession law, the Delhi High Court has held that a grandson has no birthright to seek partition of a property that his father inherited under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while allowing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, rejected the plaint filed by a son against his father, ruling that the suit was devoid of any cause of action as the property in question was the father's self-acquired property.

Background of the Case

The suit was filed by Amit Sethi (plaintiff) against his father, Lalit Sethi (defendant no. 1), and other family members, seeking partition of a property in Kalkaji, New Delhi. The plaintiff claimed a 1/5th share, asserting that the property was part of a Joint Hindu Family (HUF) and was ancestral in nature.

The property was originally owned by the plaintiff's grandfather, late Sh. Ram Lal Sethi. The plaintiff pleaded that an oral partition took place in 1986, after which the suit property devolved upon his father (Lalit Sethi) and his uncle (late Sh. Kulbhushan Sethi). The plaintiff, who was born in 1981, claimed that upon his grandfather's death in 1989, he acquired a right by birth in the property as a coparcener.

Arguments Presented

The defendants, represented by Mr. Sumit R. Sharma, argued for the rejection of the suit, contending that it was devoid of a cause of action and barred by law. They submitted that once the property devolved upon the plaintiff's father and uncle after the 1986 partition, it became their absolute, self-acquired property. Therefore, the plaintiff, as a son, could not demand partition of his living father's self-acquired property.

Conversely, the plaintiff's counsel, Ms. Rekha Saroha, argued that the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action based on the property being ancestral. She maintained that the defendants' arguments were a matter of defence that could only be considered during the trial.

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

Justice Kaurav undertook a detailed examination of the evolution of Hindu succession law, particularly the changes brought by the Hindu Succession Act (HSA), 1956. The court noted that under the traditional Mitakshara school of Hindu law, property inherited by a male from his father, grandfather, or great-grandfather was considered ancestral, giving his son a right by birth.

However, the court emphasized that the HSA, 1956, fundamentally altered this position. Citing landmark Supreme Court judgments in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur vs Chander Sen (1986) and Yudhister v. Ashok Kumar (1987) , the High Court reiterated the established legal principle:

"The Act makes it clear by s. 4 that one should look to the Act in case of doubt and not to the pre-existing Hindu law... the property which devolved on a Hindu under s. 8 of the Act would be HUF in his hand vis-a-vis his own son."

The court explained that Section 8 of the HSA provides a self-contained scheme for intestate succession. When a male Hindu dies, his property devolves upon Class I heirs, which includes his son but not his son's son (grandson), unless the son has predeceased the grandfather.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

The court found a clear contradiction in the plaintiff's own pleadings. While the plaintiff admitted to a 1986 partition that gave his father an absolute share, he simultaneously claimed a birthright in it as ancestral property. The court observed:

"The plaintiff’s plea that rights accrued to him by birth in 1981 is directly contrary to the settled legal position... When Sh. Ram Lal Sethi died intestate, his property devolved upon his sons in their individual capacity and not as coparcenary property as per the operation of Section 8 of HSA. The plaintiff, being a grandson whose father was alive at the time of his grandfather’s death, had no birthright in the property."

The judgment further clarified the legal standing of the plaintiff:

"So long as the father is alive, the son cannot claim any right in his father's property, since Section 8 of HSA excludes the concept of survivorship or birthright in the case of intestate succession. A cause of action in favour of the son would arise only upon the father’s death, intestate, when succession actually opens under Section 8 of HSA."

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding that the plaintiff's claim was "illusory and devoid of cause of action," the court allowed the defendants' application and rejected the plaint. The court held that the plaintiff's father, having acquired the property through a partition that vested absolute ownership in him, held it as his self-acquired property. Consequently, the plaintiff has no existing, enforceable right to seek partition during his father's lifetime.

This decision reinforces the post-1956 legal framework governing Hindu succession, clarifying that notions of coparcenary rights by birth do not apply to properties inherited by an individual under Section 8 of the HSA.