Son Has No Birthright in Father’s Share Taken Under Section 8, Rules Supreme Court in J. Rajesh v. M. Kumaran

Case: J. Rajesh (Minor) through his Mother and Natural Guardian J. Gomathi v. M. Kumaran (Dead) through LRs. & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 1208
Date of Judgment: 06 November 2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal
Proceedings: Civil Appeal No. 7020 of 2012

Court Observation

“The son of a divided son (grandson) does not get right from his father by birth who is excluded by virtue of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and he cannot become a coparcener in the property in question.”

Summary

The Supreme Court has held that a son has no birthright in property that his father received as his share in a partition under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court dismissed the appeal of J. Rajesh, who had claimed a half share in a 1,811 sq. ft. plot in Chennai that his father obtained under a compromise partition decree and later sold. The Court held that once the property was partitioned, it became the father’s exclusive individual property and could no longer be treated as coparcenary property in which his son could claim a right by birth.

The Court held that under Section 8, the property of a Hindu dying intestate devolves on the Class I heirs, who take simultaneously to the exclusion of all other heirs, and a son’s son is not a Class I heir. It further held that neither Section 6 of the Act nor Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, assists the appellant: Section 29-A confers coparcenary rights on daughters by birth but does not create a birthright for a son in property taken by his father under Section 8. The sale deeds executed by the father in 1997 therefore stand, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key Holdings

• Property devolving under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, passes to the Class I heirs, who take simultaneously to the exclusion of all other heirs; a son’s son is not a Class I heir and acquires no right in his grandfather’s property under that provision.
• Once property is allotted to a divided son under a partition decree, it becomes his exclusive individual property and cannot be said to be coparcenary property, so his son acquires no coparcenary right in it by birth.
• Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, recognises coparcenary rights of daughters by birth; it does not create a birthright for a son in property his father took under Section 8.
• A partition of ancestral property must be distinguished from succession under Section 8: where the property reached the father by succession under Section 8 and was then partitioned, the son cannot claim a birthright in the father’s allotted share.
• A suit for partition filed by a minor during his father’s lifetime, without challenging the compromise partition decree or the sale deeds executed by the father, cannot succeed on the premise of coparcenary by birth.

Background

The suit property belonged to N. Ramakrishnan of Chennai. His daughter G. Lalitha filed a partition suit in 1993, which was decreed on a compromise dated 3 February 1994 under which her brother, the appellant’s father, received a 1,811 sq. ft. plot. The appellant was born on 6 January 1994, and his father sold the plot in 1997 under two sale deeds. The appellant, as a minor through his mother, sued in 1997 for a half share, claiming the property was ancestral joint family property. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court set aside the decree and the Madras High Court affirmed that decision on 11 August 2010. The Supreme Court has now dismissed the appeal.

Related Articles

• Hindu Succession Act Will Not Come In Way Of Inheritance By Tribal Women: Madras High Court
• Hindu Succession Act – HUF Property Is Presumed For Be For Widow’s Maintenance When She Has Its Settled & Exclusive Possession: Supreme Court
• Hindu Succession | If Law Gets Amended Before Passing Final Decree In Partition Suit, Parties Can Seek Its Benefit: Supreme Court

Judgment Link: Read the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.