The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a civil appeal filed on behalf of a minor, J. Rajesh, through his mother J. Gomathi, who had sought half share in a property that his father received through a family partition. The bench of Justices Sunita Agarwal and Augustine George Masih held that once ancestral property devolves upon a son as a Class I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it becomes his absolute and individual property - and his own son acquires no coparcenary right in it by birth.
Background
The property in question is a 1811 sq. ft. plot originally belonging to late N. Ramakrishnan. After his death, a partition suit was filed in 1993 by his daughter G. Lalitha. The matter was settled by way of a compromise decree dated February 3, 1994, under which the first respondent - the father of the minor appellant - received his share in the said property. The appellant, J. Rajesh, was born on January 6, 1994, just weeks before the compromise was recorded.
Subsequently, the father executed two sale deeds in favour of third parties in April 1997, transferring the entire suit property. The minor, through his mother acting as natural guardian, filed Original Suit No. 1698 of 1997 claiming half share on the ground that the property was ancestral and that he had acquired coparcenary rights by birth. The Trial Court granted a preliminary decree in favour of the minor, but the First Appellate Court and later the High Court reversed it.
The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a son can claim coparcenary rights by birth in property that his living father received through partition of ancestral property.
The Court extensively relied on its earlier constitution bench ruling in C.W.T. v. Chander Sen (1986), which had settled that when property devolves upon a son as a Class I heir under Section 8, he takes it in his individual capacity - not as karta of his own Hindu Undivided Family.
“It would be difficult to hold today that the property which devolved on a Hindu under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act would be HUF in his hand vis-à-vis his own son; that would amount to creating two classes among the heirs mentioned in Class I,” the Court observed, reiterating the settled legal position.
The appellant’s counsel had argued that Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 preserved the coparcenary character of the property, but the Court rejected this contention. It noted that since the succession to the grandfather’s estate had opened before the appellant’s birth, he could not be treated as a surviving coparcener.
“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,” the judgment reads.
Finding no infirmity in the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
All pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.
Case Details:
Case Title: J. Rajesh (Minor) through J. Gomathi vs. M. Kumaran (Dead) through LRs & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 7020 of 2012
Judges: Justice Sunita Agarwal & Justice Augustine George Masih
Decision Date: November 6, 2026
