Case at a Glance
A wife and two sons sued to stop the husband from selling 5.908 hectares of family land in Guna district, claiming that as the land was ancestral they had a right in it from birth. While the suit was pending he sold part of it. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court has now dismissed the second appeal. Following Uttam v. Saubhag Singh, (2016) 03 SC CK 0094, Justice Ashish Shroti held that for sons born after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, there is no birthright: a son gets a share only after his father’s death.
The plaintiffs were Prembai, the wife of Ramswaroop (defendant no. 1), and their two sons. The suit concerned 13 survey numbers measuring 5.908 hectares in village Baskhedi, Tahsil and District Guna. It was undisputed that the land was ancestral property in the hands of Ramswaroop, and that all the plaintiffs were born after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. According to the plaint, on 21 July 2010 Ramswaroop threatened to sell the land and leave the plaintiffs without any share, so they sued for a declaration of title, possession and a permanent injunction.
While the suit was pending, Ramswaroop sold part of the land to defendant no. 3 by a sale deed dated 20 April 2011. The plaint was amended to add the purchaser and to seek a declaration that the sale deed was void. Ramswaroop pleaded that the land had already been partitioned with his brothers and that the plaintiffs had no right during his lifetime. The Fourth Civil Judge Class-1, Guna dismissed the suit on 17 May 2012, relying on Chandrakanta v. Ashok Kumar, (2002) 04 MP CK 0051, and the First Additional District Judge, Guna dismissed the first appeal on 16 May 2015. The plaintiffs then filed a second appeal in the High Court at Gwalior.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can sons born after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 claim a share in property that was ancestral in their father’s hands, and stop him from selling it, while the father is still alive?
Section 8, Not Old Hindu Law, Decides the Son’s Share
The appellants argued that the land was admittedly ancestral, that they were coparceners with a right from birth, and that the father could not sell it to defeat their rights. Conceding that no share could be claimed during the father’s lifetime, counsel argued that the sons at least had a right that would take effect on his death, which a sale would defeat. Justice Ashish Shroti first noted that the wife could never be a coparcener, so only the sons’ claim needed examination. The Court then set out Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, which gives the Act overriding effect over earlier Hindu law and custom.
The Court relied on the High Court’s earlier decision in Uttam v. Saubhag Singh, which in turn drew on Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, (1986) 12 SC CK 0051, Sheela Devi v. Lal Chand, (2006) 09 SC CK 0085, Chandrakanta v. Ashok Kumar and Babulal v. Ramkali Bai, (2012) 03 MP CK 0064, and which held that after the Act a grandson has no birthright in the grandfather’s property and cannot seek partition during his father’s lifetime. That view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Uttam v. Saubhag Singh (2016) 4 SCC 68, which summarised the law under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 19 of the Act; the Court also noted the coordinate-bench decision in Govardhan v. Ramvati Bai. Justice Shroti concluded that “the theory of birth right does not exist, and son gets share in the property only after death of his father”, and that survivorship under Section 6 applies only where the coparcener was born before the Act. Further, the plaintiffs’ own plaint stated that Ramswaroop had received the land on partition from his father, which made it his property; so the plaintiffs could not claim a share during his lifetime. The first appellate court’s finding that the property was not coparcenary property was upheld, though on this different reasoning.
What the Court Actually Held
- For sons born after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, there is no birthright in property that was ancestral in the father’s hands; a son gets a share only after his father’s death.
- Survivorship under Section 6 applies only where the coparcener was born before the Act came into force; Section 4 gives the Act overriding effect over earlier Hindu law.
- The wife (plaintiff no. 1) could not be a coparcener at all.
- As the plaint itself said the father got the land on partition from his father, the plaintiffs could not claim a share during his lifetime; the second appeal was dismissed as devoid of any substantial question of law.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many family disputes start with the belief that “ancestral” land automatically gives sons a share from birth. This ruling shows how the 1956 Act changed that position for sons born after the Act, following the Supreme Court’s view in Uttam v. Saubhag Singh.
- It explains why a suit to stop a living father from selling property received on partition is likely to fail, even if the land was originally ancestral.
- Pleadings matter: the plaintiffs’ own statement that the father received the land on partition decided the case against them.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Families
- If you were born after 1956, check how your father got the property before suing for a share in his lifetime — land received on partition is treated as his own under Section 8.
- Your share in such property arises on his death as a Class I heir, along with others such as your mother and sisters.
- A father can deal with such property during his lifetime; a suit to block a sale on a ‘birthright’ theory may fail.
For Counsel
- Plead with care: an admission that the father received the land on partition can defeat a coparcenary claim.
- Distinguish cases where the claimant was born before the Act or where a genuine coparcenary continued; the Court noted Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh, (2013) 07 SC CK 0155 and Dharma Shamrao Agalawe v. Pandurang Miragu Agalawe, (1988) 02 SC CK 0028 as distinguishable cases discussed in Uttam.
- Cite Uttam v. Saubhag Singh (2016) 4 SCC 68 together with this judgment on Sections 4, 6, 8 and 19.
Key Takeaways
- “Ancestral” land in a father’s hands does not give sons born after 1956 a share from birth.
- A son’s share in such property arises only after the father’s death.
- Survivorship under Section 6 helps only coparceners born before the Act.
- Second appeal dismissed; the courts below were upheld, though on different reasoning.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I get a share in my grandfather’s land from birth?
According to this judgment, which follows Uttam v. Saubhag Singh, if you were born after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force and your father received the land from his father, you do not have a birthright; your share arises on your father’s death.
Could the father sell the land while the suit was pending?
He did sell part of it in 2011. Since the High Court held that the plaintiffs had no right in the land during his lifetime, their suit, including the challenge to the sale, failed.
Did the wife have any claim as a coparcener?
No. The Court noted that the wife could not be a coparcener, so only the sons’ claim was examined.
Conclusion
The judgment is a clear reminder that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 changed the old rule of birthright for those born after it came into force. Following Uttam v. Saubhag Singh, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the sons could not claim a share, or stop a sale, while their father was alive, particularly when their own plaint showed that he had got the land on partition.
Practical takeaway: Before suing a living parent over “ancestral” property, establish when the claimant was born and how the parent got the land; for those born after 1956, a share in property the father received on partition generally arises only on his death.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com