Inheritance Rights in Grandfather’s Property: Supreme Court’s Ruling

Source: The post “Inheritance Rights in Grandfather’s Property: Supreme Court’s Ruling” has been created based on “Inheritance Rights in Grandfather’s Property: Supreme Court’s Ruling” published in “Indian Express” on 13th November 2026.

UPSC Syllabus: GS 2 – Indian Polity

Context: The recent case concerned the property of N. Ramakrishnan, which was divided among his legal heirs following a partition suit filed by his daughter in 1993. His son, M. Kumaran, received a plot under a compromise deed in February 1994 and subsequently sold it in April 1997. Kumaran’s son, Rajesh, challenged the sale, claiming that the property was ancestral and that he had acquired coparceny rights by birth. In this case, the Supreme Court has clarified that a grandson does not automatically acquire a share in his grandfather’s property merely by birth. His inheritance rights depend upon the nature of the property and the applicable provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Legal Framework related to right by birth in his grandfather’s property under Hindu Law:

1. Dayabhaga School:

1. It is mainly followed in West Bengal and Assam.
2. A son does not acquire any right in his father’s property by birth. His inheritance rights arose only after his father’s death.

2. Mitakshara School:

1. It is followed in most other parts of India.
2. A son traditionally acquires an interest by birth in ancestral coparcenary property and can claim partition of his share.

3. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:

1. It provides for the devolution of property of a Hindu male dying intestate (without a valid will).
2. Class I heirs include sons, daughters, widows, mothers and the son of a predeceased son.
3. However, the son of a living son is not included as a Class I heir.

4. Section 19 of the Act:

1. When two or more heirs inherit property, they hold it as tenants in common and not as joint tenants.
2. This means that each heir receives an individual share and becomes its independent owner.

Key Findings of the Supreme Court:

1. No Automatic Right by Birth: The grandson cannot directly claim his grandfather’s property under Section 8 when his father is alive and is himself a legal heir.
2. Individual Ownership after Partition: Once the grandfather’s property was divided among his legal heirs, each heir became the exclusive owner of the share allotted to them.
3. Right to Transfer Property: The plot allotted to Kumaran became his individual property, and he was legally entitled to sell it without obtaining his son’s consent.
4. Non-continuation of Coparcenary: The Court held that the earlier principle of Hindu personal law granting a grandson rights by birth was not expressly preserved by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in the circumstances of this case.
5. Timing of Succession: The Court observed that succession had opened upon the grandfather’s death before the grandson was born. Therefore, the grandson was not a surviving coparcener when succession opened.

Conclusion: The judgment clarifies that birth alone does not confer inheritance rights in every category of grandfather’s property. It distinguishes between ancestral coparcenary property and property inherited as an individual share under Section 8. It also reinforces the importance of statutory provisions in determining inheritance rights.

Question: Does a grandson acquire an automatic right by birth in his grandfather’s property under Hindu law? Discuss the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in this regard with reference to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Source: Indian Express