Inheritance Right: Son Can Inherit Father’s Property Under Intestate Succession, But Not Grandfather’s, says Delhi HC

If a person dies intestate (without writing a Will), the assets of the deceased are devolved on the legal heirs. In a recent case, when a son filed a suit seeking a declaration on his rights on the ancestral property, Delhi high court held that the son is a class I heir in the property of his father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, but not in the property of his grandfather. Judge Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held, “The plaintiff, being a grandson whose father was alive at the time of his grandfather’s death, had no birthright in the property.”

The court noted that the property originally belonged to the plaintiff’s grandfather, and after his death, it was partitioned, and his father received 50 per cent of the property, which in his (father's) hand became a self-acquired property. Thus, the plaintiff has no right to the property as long as the father is alive.  

Case Brief And Arguments

The case belonged to a property in Delhi owned by Ram Lal Sethi (grandfather). He died, and the property was divided equally between his two sons: Lalit Sethi and Kulbhusan Sethi. Both sons have two sons each. The plaintiff is one of the sons of Lalit Sethi, who filed the suit and claimed that his grandfather “effected an oral partition amongst all his legal heirs” in 1986 before his death in 1989, and thus, as a grandson, he became the absolute owner of his shares in the property.

In response to this, his father (Lalit Sethi), his brother, and two cousins (two sons of Kulbhushan Sethi) filed an application to reject the suit.

The plaintiff’s counsel argued that it is a Joint Hindu Family Property, and thus, the plaintiff holds proportionate, undivided, and impartible ownership rights in the property. However, the defendants’ counsel sought rejection of the suit due to being “devoid of any cause of action and for failure to disclose the necessary facts”.

Court Observation

The court brought to the notice the change in inheritance law by the Hindu Succession Act. Referring to Section 8 of the Act, the court said, “Section 8 of the HSA laid down the rules of succession in respect of the property of a male Hindu dying intestate, whereby the property of such a person devolves, firstly upon the heirs specified in Class I of the Schedule, to the exclusion of all other persons. The list of Class I heirs includes the son, daughter, widow, mother, and certain descendants of predeceased children, but it is pertinent to note that grandchildren, who are not children of a predeceased child, are not included in this category.”

It is clear that the HAS includes the son only for inheriting the property, but not the grandson.

The court also highlighted that prior to the Hindu Succession Act (HSA), 1956, “property inherited by a person from his father, grandfather, or great-grandfather would be regarded as ancestral property, thereby conferring upon his son a right to share in the same from the moment of his birth.” However, after the enactment of the HSA, this rule has changed.

“Under the traditional Hindu Law, a male Hindu by virtue of his birth is vested with a right in any property inherited by his father. However, by reason of Section 8 of HSA, the grandson gets excluded, and the son alone inherits the property to the exclusion of his son. Therefore, by operation of provisions under Section 8 of HSA, the property of the father who dies intestate devolves on his son in his individual capacity and not as Karta of his own family”, said the court.

It clarified that as long as the father is alive, he cannot claim the property. And only if his father dies intestate, he would have the right to make a claim under the law.

Court Order

It held, “The plaintiff has no existing, enforceable right to seek partition or claim ownership in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff’s alleged 1/5th share is a mere assumption based on pre-1956 notions of coparcenary, which stand abrogated by Section 8 of the HSA.”

The court then allowed the application and rejected the plaint, saying that it was based on the wrong assumption of considering the property as ancestral, whereas it became a self-acquired property in his father’s hand. The court noted that the property was partitioned during his grandfather’s lifetime.