A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India (Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal) affirmed that under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), property inherited by a son from his deceased intestate father—which is subsequently partitioned among Class I heirs—becomes the exclusive individual property of the son. The Apex Court held that a grandson acquires no right by birth in such partitioned property during his father’s lifetime, as Section 8 is a self-contained provision that excludes a “son’s son” from Class I legal heirs when the father is alive.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Augustine George Masih & Justice Sunita Agarwal (Opinion authored by Justice Sunita Agarwal)
Date of Decision: November 10, 2026
Subject Area: Hindu Law & Succession | Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Section 8, Class I Schedule, Section 6) | Section 29A (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 | Tenancy in Common vs. Joint Coparcenary | Grandson’s Claim to Birthright in Father’s Partitioned Share
Core Legal Principles Established by the Supreme Court
1. Section 8 HSA is a Self-Contained Devolution Code
- Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is a self-contained provision governing the general rules of succession for a Hindu male dying intestate. Express statutory words of Section 8 prevail over uncodified traditional Hindu personal law principles.
- Under the Schedule to Section 8, a “son’s son” (grandson) is NOT a Class I heir during the lifetime of his father. Therefore, a grandson cannot claim succession or a birthright in his grandfather’s estate while his father is alive.
2. Severance of Joint Status via Partition (Tenants-in-Common)
- Reaffirming CWT v. Chander Sen and Bhanwar Singh v. Puran, when a Hindu male dies intestate and his property is partitioned among his Class I heirs, the heirs take the property as tenants-in-common in their individual capacities, not as joint tenants.
- Upon partition, the property ceases to be joint family/coparcenary property, and the portion allotted to the father does not convert into an HUF property for his own branch.
3. Inapplicability of Section 6 HSA & Regional Gender Amendments (Section 29A TN Act)
- Where succession opens under Section 8 and a partition decree is executed among Class I heirs, survivorship provisions under unamended Section 6 or state-level coparcenary amendments (such as Section 29A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989) have no application.
- A grandson who was not a “surviving coparcener” at the time succession opened cannot subsequently assert coparcenary status by birth over property that has already devolved individually on his father.
Fact Pattern & Judicial Trajectory
| Phase / Forum | Fact Pattern & Decision |
| Originating Title & Partition | Grandfather (N. Ramakrishnan) died leaving land in Tamil Nadu. His daughter filed a partition suit, which resulted in a 1994 Compromise Partition Decree, under which Defendant No. 1 (D1 – Son/Father) received a specific parcel of land. |
| Birth & Alienation | Appellant (Son of D1 / Grandson) was born in 1994. In 1997, D1 sold the partitioned land via registered sale deeds to Defendants 2 and 3 (D2 & D3). |
| Trial & First Appellate Court | In 1997, the minor son (via mother) sued for partition claiming half share as coparcener by birth. Trial Court granted a preliminary decree. First Appellate Court reversed, holding D1 took the property absolutely under Section 8. |
| Madras High Court | Dismissed the second appeal, affirming that a grandson acquires no birthright in property received by his father through a Section 8 partition after the grandfather’s death. |
| Supreme Court Disposition | Dismissed the Appeal. Upheld HC ruling; held that the partitioned land was D1’s exclusive individual property, and the grandson had no standing or coparcenary birthright to seek partition during his father’s lifetime. |
Key Quotes from the Bench
“A son’s son is not mentioned as an heir under Class I of the Schedule, and, therefore he could not get any right in the property of his grandfather under the provision… Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is to be read as a self-contained provision laying down the scheme of devolution of the property of the Hindu male dying intestate.”
“With the partition decree, the property… falling in the share of the father of the appellant became his exclusive property in his individual capacity and cannot be said to be coparcenary. There is no question of devolution of the property once partitioned and became exclusive individual property of the first respondent upon the appellant herein so as to recognise his right on the premise of attaining coparcenary rights with his birth.”
— Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih & Justice Sunita Agarwal