- Rajesh v. M. Kumaran, 2026 INSC 1208 (decided 06.11.2026)
The short story
Many Hindu families believe that a grandson gets a share in the family property the day he is born. A recent Supreme Court judgment shows that this is not always true.
In this case, the grandfather’s property was partitioned among his legal heirs by a compromise decree dated 03.02.1994. A plot of 1811 sq. ft. went to the grandson’s father. The grandson had been born on 06.01.1994. In 1997 the father sold the plot to two buyers. The same year, the grandson, through his mother, sued for half of the plot, saying it was ancestral property and that he had a right by birth. The trial court agreed. The High Court set that decision aside on 11.08.2010, and on 06.11.2026 the Supreme Court dismissed the grandson’s appeal.
Why the grandson lost
The Court looked first at Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. When a Hindu male dies without a will, his property goes to his Class I heirs, and a son’s son is in that list only if the son has died before the grandfather. Here, the father was alive, so the grandson was not a Class I heir.
The Court also held that the father received his share as an heir, in his own individual capacity, and not as head of a joint family. So the share did not become coparcenary property in his hands, and the grandson did not acquire a birthright in it. The Court held that the pre-2005 Section 6 and the Tamil Nadu Section 29-A were not attracted on these facts. It also noted that the grandson had never challenged the compromise decree or the sale deeds.
What the judgment does not say
The Court did not rule that a grandson can never claim a share in joint family property. Genuine coparcenary property is a different matter, and each case depends on how the property came to the family and on the dates involved. The Court also did not decide whether this particular property was ancestral.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Does a grandson get a share in his father’s property by birth?
Ans. Not automatically. Whether he does depends on the nature of the property. A share that the father received as an heir under Section 8 on the death of his own father is held by him individually, and following this judgment a grandson cannot claim it by birth.
When may a grandson get a share? In general, the following situations are where a grandson may have a claim (these are general legal positions, not holdings of this judgment, and each depends on its facts): (1) where the property is genuine coparcenary or joint family property, for example property that has stayed undivided in the family and was never inherited through Section 8, in which case a grandson may take a share by birth; (2) where his own father has died before the grandfather, because a predeceased son’s son is a Class I heir under Section 8 and takes his father’s share; (3) where the father dies and the grandson inherits as the father’s own Class I heir, along with the other heirs, from whatever the father owned at death; and (4) where the property comes to him through a will or gift. Whether a particular property falls in the first category is a question of fact and should be checked from the title history and dates.
- What does Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act say?
Ans. It lays down who inherits when a Hindu male dies without a will. Class I heirs, such as sons, daughters, the widow and the mother, inherit first and together. A son’s son appears in Class I only when his own father has died before the grandfather.
- Can a father sell the property without the son’s consent?
Ans. Where the property is the father’s own individual share, the buyers’ title was not disturbed in this case, and the son’s suit failed. Where the property is genuine joint family property, the position can be different, so each case must be examined on its facts.
- The property was called ancestral. Does that settle the matter?
Ans. No. The label alone does not decide the question. The Court looked at how the property devolved and in whose hands it stood. The Court did not decide whether this property was ancestral.
- What about daughters?
Ans. The 2005 amendment to Section 6 made daughters coparceners by birth in joint family property. That amendment did not help the grandson in this case, because the Court analysed the position as it stood before 2005 on the facts before it.
- Does it matter that the grandson did not challenge the decree and the sale deeds?
Ans. Yes. The Court noted that the compromise decree and the sale deeds were never challenged by him, and this weighed against his claim.
- What should a buyer or a family member check before dealing in such property?
Ans. Check how the seller got the property: by inheritance, by partition, by gift or by will. Check the date of the original owner’s death, any partition decree or deed, and who the other heirs are. Reading the title documents together with the relevant law helps to avoid disputes later.
Disclaimer
This article is published by DKYLEGAL Law Firm for general educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and is not an invitation to engage the firm. Every case turns on its own facts, and readers should obtain independent professional advice before acting on any information in it.