Back
Son Cannot Claim in Father's Inherited Property Without HUF Pleadings:
In a significant ruling on Hindu succession and property rights, the has held that a son cannot claim a in property inherited by his father under , unless the existence of a is specifically pleaded and established. The court dismissed an appeal by Devaram, who sought to challenge sale deeds executed by his father and uncles over agricultural land originally allotted to his grandfather.
The Dispute: A Grandson's Claim for Share
The case revolved around 75 bighas of agricultural land in Jaisalmer, originally allotted to Chutra Ram under the . Upon Chutra Ram's in , his three sons—including Devaram's father, Khetaram—inherited equal shares under Section 8. In , these three sons executed a registered sale deed alienating the land to third parties. Devaram, claiming a 1/9th coparcenary interest by birth, sued for declaration, cancellation of the sale deed, and injunction.
The trial court dismissed the suit under , holding that the civil court lacked jurisdiction unless Devaram first obtained a declaration of his from the competent revenue court.
No for HUF
Justice Farjand Ali, presiding over the single bench, scrutinized the plaint and found a critical omission: Devaram had not pleaded that the land was ever part of an HUF or that his grandfather held it as karta of a joint family.
"A claim of
is founded upon the existence of
, and such a claim cannot be sustained merely from the genealogical relationship between the parties,"
the court observed.
The judgment emphasized that once succession opened under Section 8, the property devolved upon the three sons in their individual capacities. Relying on the 's decision in
Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh & Ors.
(
), the High Court clarified that property inherited under Section 8 does not automatically become ancestral or
in the hands of the heir.
"The property inherited by the appellant's father cannot be treated as joint Hindu family property merely because it had originally belonged to his father,"
the court stated.
Jurisdictional Bar Under the
Additionally, the court noted that Devaram had not sought a declaration of his from the revenue court, as mandated by . Relying on Pyarelal vs. Shubhendra Pilania & Ors. (), the High Court held that civil courts cannot assume jurisdiction over consequential reliefs like cancellation of sale deeds until the foundational khatedari right is determined by the appropriate revenue forum.
"The appellant's case fails on both substantive and jurisdictional grounds,"
Justice Ali concluded.
Final Decision and Implications
The court found no error in the trial court's rejection of the plaint and dismissed the first appeal. The judgment reinforces the principle that a son cannot claim a share in his father's during the father's lifetime, especially when the property was inherited under the statutory scheme of the Hindu Succession Act. It serves as a reminder that pleadings must lay a clear foundation for asserting coparcenary rights, and cannot be circumvented by framing a suit as a civil action for .
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
"Once succession has taken place under Section 8, the heirs succeed in their respective individual capacities and the property so devolved cannot be treated as merely on the basis of the earlier relationship of the parties."
-
"In the absence of any specific pleading or material establishing that the property formed part of a pre-existing Hindu Undivided Family, the property inherited by the appellant's father cannot be treated as joint Hindu family property."
-
"The appellant cannot derive a merely from the relationship of father and son."
-
"Unless the appellant's alleged right in the agricultural land is duly declared by the competent revenue court, the present civil suit cannot be said to be maintainable in law."
The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's decree was affirmed. The court directed that the record be transmitted back to the trial court forthwith.
