A grandson has no right by birth in the share his father receives when the grandfather’s estate is partitioned, and he cannot sue for partition of it while his father is alive. The Supreme Court held this in J. Rajesh (Minor) v. M. Kumaran (Dead) through LRs, 2026 INSC 1208, decided on 6 November 2026. Property a son inherits from his father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is his own, not joint family property in which his sons get a share at birth.
Case at a glance
- Case: J. Rajesh (Minor), through his mother and natural guardian J. Gomathi v. M. Kumaran (Dead) through LRs & Ors.
- Citation: 2026 INSC 1208; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1148
- Case number: Civil Appeal No. 7020 of 2012
- Bench: Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal (author)
- Date: 6 November 2026
- Result: Appeal dismissed. The Madras High Court’s view was upheld, and the grandson’s partition suit failed.
Facts
- N. Ramakrishnan, the grandfather, died intestate. His daughter filed a partition suit (C.S. No. 1728 of 1993) over his property.
- The suit ended in a compromise decree on 3 February 1994. The first defendant, M. Kumaran (the grandfather’s son), got a share of about 1,811 sq. ft.
- Kumaran’s son, the appellant, was born on 6 January 1994, after the grandfather’s death.
- In April 1997, Kumaran sold the land to defendants 2 and 3 by two sale deeds.
- Later in 1997, the minor son sued through his mother (O.S. No. 1698 of 1997), claiming a half share on the ground that the land was ancestral, joint family property. He did not challenge the compromise decree or the sale deeds.
- The City Civil Court, Chennai, passed a preliminary decree for partition. The first appellate court set it aside, and the Madras High Court agreed that the grandson had no right by birth. The father stayed ex parte throughout and died in 2024.
The question
Can a son, whose father is alive, claim a half share in his father’s property and seek partition on the footing that it is ancestral or joint family property (para 1)?
What the Supreme Court said
1. Section 8 is a self-contained scheme
When a Hindu male dies intestate, his property passes under Section 8 to his Class I heirs. A son’s son is not a Class I heir while his own father is alive. The Court called Section 8 a self-contained provision, and said the son takes the property in his individual capacity, not as karta of a family that includes his own sons (paras 34–35).
2. Chander Sen applied
Following CWT v. Chander Sen (1986), the Court said the express words of Section 8 “cannot be ignored and must prevail” over the old Mitakshara rule that a grandson gets an interest at birth in ancestral property (para 38).
3. Partition ended any joint character
The grandfather’s heirs took his property as tenants in common, not as joint tenants. It did not become HUF property, and after the partition the joint character, if any, came to an end (para 35).
4. Nothing devolved on the grandson
Succession opened on the grandfather’s death, before the appellant was born. So there was “no question of devolution of interest” in the suit property on him (para 36).
5. Section 6 and the Tamil Nadu amendment do not help
Section 6 (survivorship in a Mitakshara coparcenary) and Section 29-A, added by the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, apply to coparcenary property. The appellant was not a surviving coparcener when his grandfather died, so neither provision applied (para 39).
6. The father’s share was his own
The share allotted to the father in the 1994 partition “became his exclusive property in his individual capacity”. It was not coparcenary property, so no right arose on the son’s birth (para 41). The Court also noted that the son sued only after the sales, without challenging the decree or the sale deeds (para 40).
The law in short
- Section 8, Hindu Succession Act: a male Hindu’s property, on intestacy, goes first to the Class I heirs listed in the Schedule. These include his sons, daughters, widow and mother, and the children of a son or daughter who died before him.
- So a grandson inherits from his grandfather directly only if his own father died before the grandfather. If the father is alive, the father inherits, and holds that property as his own.
- Section 6: deals with interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary. A right by birth exists only in coparcenary property, not in property a son takes under Section 8.
Why it matters
- For buyers: land a seller got in a family partition, or inherited from his father under Section 8, can be sold by him without his sons’ consent. A son cannot later undo the sale by calling it ancestral property.
- For families: the label “ancestral property” does not by itself give sons a share. What matters is how the property came to the father: through a coparcenary that still exists, or by inheritance and partition under the 1956 Act.
- For litigants: a partition claim against a living father needs proof that the property is still coparcenary property. Suits filed after the father has sold, without challenging the earlier partition or sale, face an uphill task.