Supreme Court Judgements on Partition of the Property to the Great Grandchildren in a Partition Suit in the property inherited from ancestors where the legal heirs died intestate
Posted on April 13, 2025
Here are some recent Supreme Court judgments related to partition suits, particularly those concerning ancestral or unpartitioned properties:
1. Shashidhar & Ors. v. Ashwini Uma Mathad & Anr. (2024)
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of ancestral property in partition suits. The Court ruled that properties acquired through inheritance or transfer cannot be considered part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) coparcenary for partition. The judgment emphasized that only properties inherited from a common ancestor and held jointly can be considered ancestral for partition purposes.
2. Prashanth Kumar Sahoo & Ors. v. Charulata Sahoo & Ors. (2023)
The Supreme Court held that parties to a partition suit are entitled to equal shares as coparceners in ancestral properties. The Court invalidated a compromise deed executed without proper consent and in writing, as required by Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the parties were granted equal shares in the ancestral properties.
3. Raja Gounder & Ors. v. M. Sengodan & Ors. (2024)
The Supreme Court ruled that children born out of void or voidable marriages are entitled to a share of notionally partitioned property of their parents. In this case, the Court allowed a preliminary decree of partition for the plaint schedule properties, allotting equal shares to the legal heirs, including children from void or voidable marriages.
4. Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai v. V. Kumar Vamanrao (2024)
The Supreme Court upheld the 1984 partition and set aside the High Court’s findings. The Court emphasized the importance of pleadings in defining the scope of the case and noted that evidence cannot be considered on points not pleaded or for which an amendment was specifically rejected. The Court also upheld the sale deed executed by the appellant in favor of defendant No. 9.
5. Trinity Infraventures Ltd. & Ors. v. M.S. Murthy & Ors. (2023)
The Supreme Court ruled that findings on property title recorded in a simple partition suit are not binding on third parties. The Court emphasized that no party to a partition suit could acquire title to a specific property or portion of a property, even through an agreement, if the contract was entered into only with some of the parties involved.
Key Supreme Court Judgments:
-
Uttam v. Saubhag Singh (2016): In this case, the Supreme Court held that after the death of a coparcener (Jagannath Singh) in 1973, his share in the ancestral property devolved upon his Class I heirs (his sons) under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, as he died intestate. The Court emphasized that such property, upon devolution under Section 8, becomes the separate property of the heirs, and not joint family property. Consequently, the plaintiff (grandson of Jagannath Singh) could not claim a partition during his father’s lifetime, as he had no birthright in the property that had devolved under Section 8.
-
Pavitri Devi & Anr. v. Darbari Singh & Ors. (1993): The Supreme Court discussed the devolution of a Hindu male’s interest in coparcenary property upon his death intestate. It held that such interest devolves by intestate succession under the Hindu Succession Act, not by survivorship. The Court also noted that the interest of a deceased coparcener in Mitakshara coparcenary property is deemed to be the share he would have received if a partition had occurred immediately before his death.
The Supreme Court has addressed aspects of this distribution in several judgments:
1. Uttam v. Saubhag Singh (2016):
In this case, the Supreme Court held that upon the death of a coparcener intestate, his share in the ancestral property devolves upon his Class I heirs (sons and widow) under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. This share becomes the separate property of the heirs. The Court emphasized that grandchildren (sons of predeceased sons) do not have a birthright in the property that devolved under Section 8 to their father. Therefore, they cannot claim partition during their father’s lifetime.
2. Paresh Damodardas Mahant v. Arun Damodardas Mahant (2014):
The Supreme Court observed that in a suit for partition, the death of an earlier co-owner is not material. It held that any co-owner may apply for partition of ancestral property at any time. The Court also noted that the interest of the deceased in such property devolves by succession and not by survivorship, and the right to claim upon succession accrues on the date of the death of the deceased holder of the interest in such HUF property.
3. Shashidhar v. Ashwini Uma Mathad (2024):
The Supreme Court clarified that properties acquired through inheritance or transfer are not automatically considered part of the ancestral coparcenary property. Such properties must be proven to be ancestral through clear pleadings and evidence. In this case, the Court excluded certain properties from partition, confirming that they were self-acquired by the propositus and later transferred to one of the appellants.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgments:
-
Damalanka Gangaraju and Others v. Nandipati Vijaya Lakshrni and Others: This case delved into the implications of the 1986 Amendment, emphasizing that daughters married after its enactment are entitled to coparcenary rights. The court noted exceptions, such as partitions occurring before the Act’s commencement.
-
B. Chandrakala v. A. Anuradha: The court examined the concept of notional partition under the 1956 Act, as amended in 2005. It held that upon a coparcener’s death, his share is ascertained as if a partition had occurred immediately before his death. However, the court also noted that if the father (coparcener) had died before the 2005 Amendment, his daughters might not acquire coparcener rights, affecting their claim to the property.
-
Krishna Kumar v. Shah: Addressing the retroactive application of the 2005 Amendment, the court ruled that if a final decree of partition was passed before the amendment, daughters could not retrospectively claim coparcener rights. Therefore, great-grandchildren’s rights would depend on whether their parent (the predeceased child of the coparcener) had a share in the property at the time of their death.
Article Written by
Pathakota Venkata Mohana Rao B.Com, LL.M
Advocate at High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
Designated Partner at VENSO LAW OFFICES LLP
Office No: +91 967 967 6450
E-mail ID: vensolawofficesllp@gmail.com
