Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Grandson's Rights in Grandfather Property - Main Points and Insights
Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically Section 8, the property of a deceased father devolves on his children (sons and daughters) in their individual capacity, not as members of a joint family or as karta of a family. The Act primarily recognizes Class I heirs, which include the son, daughter, and widow, but explicitly excludes grandchildren (sons of predeceased sons) from this list Govardhan vs Ramvati Bai - Madhya Pradesh, C.SHANMUGAM vs CHINNAPAIYAN - Madras.
The Schedule to the Act does not list grandsons as Class I heirs. Consequently, a grandson (son's son) does not have an automatic right to inherit his grandfather's property under the law, especially if the son's father (the grandson's father) is alive. The property devolves directly to the son of the predeceased son only if he is recognized as a Class I heir, which he is not under the Schedule Govardhan vs Ramvati Bai - Madhya Pradesh, C.SHANMUGAM vs CHINNAPAIYAN - Madras, Birbal Saini VS Satywati - Current Civil Cases.
The Supreme Court has upheld this interpretation, disapproving Gujarat High Court decisions that suggested grandsons could inherit based on old Hindu law principles. In judgments like Shrivallabhdas Modani and Chander Sen, the Court clarified that grandsons do not inherit as Class I heirs and cannot claim rights in their grandfather's property if their father is alive Govardhan vs Ramvati Bai - Madhya Pradesh.
The Court also emphasized that after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, no court shall recognize any right against a son, grandson, or great-grandson for recovery of debts solely on the basis of pious obligation, reinforcing that inheritance rights are limited to the statutory heirs listed in the Schedule Govardhan vs Ramvati Bai - Madhya Pradesh.
Several High Courts, including Allahabad, Madras, and Andhra Pradesh, have taken the consistent view that grandsons do not have an automatic right to inherit their grandfather's property under the Act, contrasting with Gujarat High Court's earlier contrary stance. The Supreme Court has affirmed this position, asserting that property devolves directly to the heirs listed in the Schedule and not to grandchildren unless they are specifically included Govardhan vs Ramvati Bai - Madhya Pradesh, Mohanlal VS Hanuman Singh - Rajasthan.
Analysis and Conclusion
Based on authoritative judgments from the Supreme Court and consistent High Court decisions, a grandson does not have a right to inherit his grandfather's property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, unless he is recognized as a Class I heir (which he is not). The law clearly excludes grandchildren from the list of heirs unless specific circumstances or legal provisions apply differently.
Therefore, in the absence of a will or specific legal provisions, a grandson has no automatic right to claim the grandfather's property during the lifetime of the son (his father), and inheritance rights are limited to the heirs enumerated in the Schedule.
This position aligns with the legal principle that property devolves directly to the heirs listed in the Schedule, and the Court's role is to interpret the statute accordingly, disfavoring claims based on old Hindu law principles that included grandchildren as heirs.
References:
In family disputes over property, a common question arises: Whether Grand Son has Right in Grandfather Property? This query often stems from traditional notions under Hindu law where coparcenary rights extended to grandsons. However, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has reshaped these principles. This blog post delves into the legal framework, pivotal Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court judgments, and clarifies the current position—generally, a grandson does not have an automatic right by birth in his grandfather's property if it devolves to his father post-1956. Always consult a legal expert for case-specific advice, as this is general information.
Prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, under Mitakshara Hindu law, a son acquired an interest in his father's property by birth, forming a coparcenary that included grandsons. But the Act introduced significant changes, particularly Section 8, which governs intestate succession.
Section 8 stipulates that a Hindu male's property devolves on Class I heirs—such as son, daughter, widow—but excludes grandsons (son's son) unless the son is predeceased. Under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the property of the father who dies intestate devolves on his son in his individual capacity and not as karta of his own family. C.SHANMUGAM vs CHINNAPAIYAN - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 877 - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 877
The property inherited by the son becomes his separate property, not joint family property available to his son (the grandson). This shift was to modernize inheritance and prevent perpetual coparcenary claims. Akshat Mittal VS Renu Mittal - Delhi (2023)Arminder Singh Bedi VS Guru Nanak Dev University - Himachal Pradesh (2010)
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against grandsons' birth rights in grandfather's property post-1956. Here are key cases:
In this seminal case, the Court held: The Supreme Court held that a son acquires a right in his father's property at birth, becoming part of the coparcenary. However, this right is affected by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, which states that the property devolves on the son in his individual capacity, not as Karta of his own family. Consequently, the grandson does not have a right by birth in the grandfather's property, as he is not included in Class I heirs under Section 8. Akshat Mittal VS Renu Mittal - Delhi (2023)Arminder Singh Bedi VS Guru Nanak Dev University - Himachal Pradesh (2010)
The Court disapproved contrary High Court views, emphasizing statutory heirs over old Hindu law.
Reaffirming Chander Sen, the Court stated: This case reaffirmed the position that the property inherited by a son from his father is treated as his separate property, excluding the grandson from any claim to it. The court emphasized that the grandson's right in the grandfather's property ceased to exist post the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act. Mukesh Kumar vs Pavitra - Delhi (2016)Arminder Singh Bedi VS Guru Nanak Dev University - Himachal Pradesh (2010)
These rulings clarified that inheritance to the son severs coparcenary ties for his branch family.
Other Supreme Court decisions, like those referencing Shrivallabhdas Modani and Kanhaiya Lal, uphold that grandsons do not inherit as Class I heirs and cannot claim rights in their grandfather's property if their father is alive. Govardhan vs Ramvati Bai - Madhya Pradesh
The Gujarat High Court initially diverged. In CIT v. Babubhai Mansukhbhai (1977) 108 ITR 417 (Guj), it held: The Gujarat High Court initially took a contrary view, suggesting that property inherited by a son from his father remains joint family property, thus allowing the grandson a potential claim. Akshat Mittal VS Renu Mittal - Delhi (2023)Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Kanpur VS Chander Sen - Supreme Court (1986)
The Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I Vs. Dr. Babubhai Mansukhbhai, (1977) 108 ITR 417 took a view that whatever the property which the son in a HUF inherited and acquired from his father was ancestral property qua him and, therefore, that property would be coparcenary property. Shalini Sumant Raut VS Milind Sumant Raut - 2012 Supreme(Bom) 2326 - 2012 0 Supreme(Bom) 2326
However, this was overruled by the Supreme Court in Chander Sen. The Gujarat High Court's view noted above, if accepted, would mean that though the son of a predeceased son and not the son of a son who is intended to be excluded under Sec. 8 to inherit, the latter would by applying the old Hindu law get a right by birth. Vijayanand VS Parikashith - 2022 Supreme(Kar) 1588 - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 1588Manoj Sharma VS Pankaj Sharma - 2024 Supreme(Raj) 1277 - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1277Amit Johri VS Deepak Johri - 2014 Supreme(Del) 590 - 2014 0 Supreme(Del) 590
Post-overruling, Gujarat HC aligns with the Supreme Court, as seen in later references.
High Courts like Allahabad, Madras, and Andhra Pradesh concur: Several High Courts, including Allahabad, Madras, and Andhra Pradesh, have taken the consistent view that grandsons do not have an automatic right to inherit their grandfather's property under the Act. Govardhan vs Ramvati Bai - Madhya PradeshMohanlal VS Hanuman Singh - Rajasthan
The 2005 Amendment further limited claims: After the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, no court shall recognize any right against a son, grandson, or great-grandson for recovery of debts solely on the basis of pious obligation. Govardhan vs Ramvati Bai - Madhya Pradesh
Exceptions may apply for ancestral property pre-1956 or if the father is predeceased (then grandson enters as Class I heir). A son's son was not mentioned as an heir under Class I of the schedule, and, therefore, he could not get any right. C.SHANMUGAM vs CHINNAPAIYAN - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 877 - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 877
In settlement cases, specific deeds can confer rights: On perusal of the settlement deed dated 25.07.1990, it reveals that the grandfather of the second and third defendants settled his property in favour of his minor grand sons. Kesava Gounder vs Kuppa Gounder - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74311 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74311
| Aspect | Pre-1956 Hindu Law | Post-Hindu Succession Act ||--------|---------------------|---------------------------|| Grandson's Interest | By birth in coparcenary | No, unless father predeceased || Property Devolution | Joint family | Son's separate property || Key Authority | Mitakshara principles | Section 8, Class I heirs |
In summary, under the prevailing law, a grandson does not have a right in his grandfather's property if inherited by his father after 1956. The Hindu Succession Act prioritizes listed heirs, treating the son's share as absolute. Based on authoritative judgments from the Supreme Court and consistent High Court decisions, a grandson does not have a right to inherit his grandfather's property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, unless he is recognized as a Class I heir (which he is not). Govardhan vs Ramvati Bai - Madhya Pradesh
Key Takeaways:- Assess property type (ancestral/self-acquired) and inheritance date.- 2005 Amendment reinforces limits on grandson claims.- Wills or deeds can alter defaults.
This is general guidance; outcomes depend on facts. Seek professional legal counsel for disputes. References include: Akshat Mittal VS Renu Mittal - Delhi (2023)Mukesh Kumar vs Pavitra - Delhi (2016)Arminder Singh Bedi VS Guru Nanak Dev University - Himachal Pradesh (2010)Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Kanpur VS Chander Sen - Supreme Court (1986)Ram Dei VS Gyarsi and Ors. - Allahabad (2048)Govardhan vs Ramvati Bai - Madhya PradeshVijayanand VS Parikashith - 2022 Supreme(Kar) 1588 - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 1588C.SHANMUGAM vs CHINNAPAIYAN - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 877 - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 877.
#HinduSuccessionAct, #PropertyRights, #SupremeCourt
The Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I v. ... The Gujarat High Court's view noted above, if accepted, would mean that though the son of a predeceased son and not the son of a son who is intended to be excluded under Sec. 8 to inherit, the latter would by applying the old Hindu law get a #HL_S....
The Supreme court in the matter of Chander Sen (supra) has approved the above view of this Court as well as Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts. The contrary view of the Gujarat High court has been dis-approved by the Supreme court. 11. ... In the judgment of this Court in the matter of Shrivallabhdas Mo....
The Gujarat High Court's view noted above, if accepted, would mean that though the son of a predeceased son and not the son of a son who is intended to be excluded under Section 8 to inherit, the latter would by applying the old Hindu Law get a right by birth of the said property contrary to the scheme ... In view of the above undisputed fact and the l....
Under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the property of the father who dies intestate devolves on his son in his individual capacity and not as karta of his own family. On the other hand, the Gujarat High Court has taken the contrary view.'' ... A son's son was not mentioned as an heir under Class I of the schedule, and, therefore, he could not get any right ....
Under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the property of the father who dies intestate devolves on his son in his individual capacity and not as karta of his own family. On the other hand, the Gujarat High Court has taken the contrary view.'' ... A son's son was not mentioned as an heir under Class I of the schedule, and, therefore, he could not get any right ....
When the pleadings are very clear that the property belongs to the great grandfather and grandfather of the plaintiffs and also no disposition as a sole coparcener, but subsequent to the birth of the plaintiffs, the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra by the learned ... The learned counsel referring these judgments would contend that the principles laid....
A son’s son was not mentioned as an heir under class I of the Schedule, and, therefore, he could not get any right in the property of his grandfather under the provision. ... Bharat Singh as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered in Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Kanpur’s case (supra) . 64. Ld. Trial Court rightly held that suit property#....
The court while deciding the child custody cases is not bound by the mere legal right of the parent or guardian. ... As against this, in the statement of Suklal Bandhe (DW-1), maternal grandfather, he stated that during the existence of first marriage, appellant – Nagendra Kumar Joshi, son-in-law, got married with Amrit , therefore, there was no attachment in between father and the son, consequently, it w....
On perusal of the settlement deed dated 25.07.1990, it reveals that the grandfather of the second and third defendants settled his property in favour of his minor grand sons/second and third defendants by appointing first defendant as guardian. ... absolute right to second and third defendant and the first defendant being a lawful guardian has no right to convey the property. ... Third d....
This Court observed in the aforesaid decision that the views expressed by the Allahabad High Court, the Madras High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court appeared to be correct and was unable to accept the views of the Gujarat High Court. ... and, t....
Further it has observed in the context of Act of 1937 at page 126 that under the law prior to the Act of 1937, the widow of a person governed by Mitakshara had only a right of maintenance in respect of coparcenery property, in which, the husband has interest. She could inheritate his separate property only in the absence of these immediate heirs. In respect of separate property, left by her husband, she had only the right of maintenance when the husband has left a son, grand-son or a....
The Gujarat High Court?s view noted above, if accepted, would mean that though the son of a predeceased son and not the son of a son who is intended to be excluded under S.8 to inherit, the latter would by applying the old Hindu law get a right by birth of the said property contrary to the scheme outlined in S.8. In view of the Preamble to the Act, i.e., that to modify where necessary and to codify the law, in our opinion it is not possible when Schedule indicates heirs in Cl....
That view has been dissented from by the Supreme Court in the case of Chander Sen (supra). That related to the self acquired property of the father which succeeded to the son. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I Vs. Dr. Babubhai Mansukhbhai, (1977) 108 ITR 417 took a view that whatever the property which the son in a HUF inherited and acquired from his father was ancestral property qua him and, therefore, that property would be coparcenary prop....
From the date of gift, both were in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. The defendant preferred appeal in A.S.No.65 of 1983 which was also dismissed. The defendant preferred appeal in A.S.No.65 of 1983 which was also dismissed. The defendant colluded with one tenant Abdul Aziz filed suit in O.S.No.295 of 1981 for declaration of title to the suit property and the suit has been dismissed. After the death of Haniff Sahib, his son the plaintiff herein inherited the prope....
The defendant preferred appeal in A.S.No.65 of 1983 which was also dismissed. The defendant colluded with one tenant Abdul Aziz filed a suit in O.S.No.295 of 1981 for declaration of title to the suit property and the suit has been dismissed. his son, the plaintiff herein inherited the property and also he has a share in the grand mothers property.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
