|
The Supreme Court has held that a grandson cannot claim coparcenary rights by birth in his grandfathers property once it has devolved upon the grandfathers Class I legal heirs and been partitioned among them, with the share inherited by his father becoming his individual property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
A bench of Justices Augustine George Masih and Sunita Agarwal dismissed a partition suit filed in 1997 on behalf of a minor grandson, while holding that the grandson could not claim an independent share in the property merely because of his birth. Justice Agarwal, who authored the judgment delivered on November 6, observed that the grandfathers property devolved upon his Class I heirs simultaneously, excluding all other heirs, under Section 8 of the 1956 Act. The dispute concerned an 1,811-square-foot property in Chennai, originally owned by the appellants grandfather. Following a partition suit filed by his paternal aunt in 1993, a compromise decree was passed in February 1994, allotting a share in the property to his father, who subsequently sold it through two sale deeds in April 1997. The grandson, born in January 1994, subsequently approached the court through his mother, claiming that he had acquired coparcenary rights by birth and should have been impleaded in the earlier partition proceedings. He sought partition and possession of half the property. Rejecting the claim, the Supreme Court relied on its 1986 judgment, which held that property inherited by a son under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act is held in his individual capacity and does not automatically become joint family property vis--vis his own children. The bench observed that after the partition, the heirs held their respective shares as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants.With the partition, the property of the grandfather of the appellant ceased to be joint family property... and joint coparcenary did not continue, the apex court said. It further noted that succession had opened upon the grandfathers death, before the appellants birth, and therefore no interest in the property could subsequently devolve upon him. The apex court also rejected reliance on Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, and the unamended Section 6 of the 1956 Act, holding that neither provision assisted the appellant in the circumstances of the case. The dispute reached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition in 2011 after the trial courts preliminary decree granting partition was reversed by the first appellate court, and the decision was upheld by the Madras High Court in August 2010. (ANI)
|
