Supreme Court Shields 1997 Plot Buyers: Grandson Has No Birthright in Father's Partitioned Share

In April 1997, two buyers bought an 1,811 sq. ft. plot in Chennai under sale deeds dated 3 April and 17 April 1997. The seller had received the plot through a compromise decree of 3 February 1994 that partitioned his late father's property among the heirs. The same year, the seller's minor son, born on 6 January 1994, sued through his mother for a half share, claiming a right by birth in ancestral property. Twenty nine years later, on 6 November 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed the son's appeal and left the buyers' purchase intact.

The judgment, in J. Rajesh (Minor) v. M. Kumaran (Dead) through LRs, Civil Appeal No. 7020 of 2012, reported as 2026 INSC 1208, was delivered by Justice Sunita Agarwal for a Bench with Justice Augustine George Masih. The property is in Chennai, but the reasoning rests on Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which governs succession to a Hindu male dying intestate across India. That makes it useful for anyone in Bengaluru buying land that a seller received in a family partition.

The short answer. The Supreme Court held that "With the partition decree, the property of N. Ramachandran 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." A grandson is not a Class I heir under Section 8 while his father is alive, so he gets no right by birth in what his father inherited and received on partition. The appeal was dismissed with no costs. The trade-off for buyers: the ruling protects a purchase from a divided heir, but the buyers still spent nearly three decades in litigation, and the outcome turned on proving that a partition had actually happened.

What did the Supreme Court decide on 6 November 2026?

It upheld the High Court's judgment of 11.08.2010, which had set aside a trial court's preliminary decree of partition in the grandson's favour. "For the reasons aforementioned, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment," the Bench said. "The appeal, thus, failed and hence stands dismissed with no order as to costs."

The judgment names the grandfather both as N. Ramakrishnan and as N. Ramachandran in different passages. In either form, the reasoning is the same: his property passed to his Class I heirs, was partitioned between them, and the son's share became the son's own.

How did the dispute begin?

With a partition among siblings. The seller's sister filed C.S. No. 1728 of 1993 for partition of their father's property. The suit was decreed on a compromise dated 03.02.1994, under which the seller received land of 1,811 sq. ft. He then sold it to the two buyers in April 1997. The minor son's suit, O.S. No. 1698 of 1997, sought partition and possession of a half share, pleading that the land was joint family property of the grandfather.

The Court noted a key gap in that suit: "there is no challenge to the compromise decree dated 03.02.1994 or the aforementioned sale deeds executed in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3. Only relief sought was for partition and possession of half share." The buyers' defence was that the seller was absolute owner under the compromise decree, and that they had paid the price and had been in possession since purchase.

How did the lower courts rule?

They split. The II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, passed a preliminary decree of partition in the grandson's favour. The buyers appealed, and the decree was set aside on first appeal. As the Supreme Court summarised, the appellate court held that "when a divided son or daughter has got the property belonging to their father in a partition, whether it is ancestral or self-acquired property of the father, they became absolute owners of their respective shares and they can deal with the property exclusively excluding their sons."

It also held that when property devolves on divided sons and daughters "per capita and not per stripes, each one of them was entitled to alienate their shares," and that the grandson "cannot become a coparcener in the property in question." The High Court's judgment of 11.08.2010 held that the grandson "did not acquire right by birth in the property which came in the hands of his father by partition after the death of his grandfather." The Supreme Court found no infirmity in that view.

Why does a grandson not get a right by birth here?

Because of Section 8. The Court relied on its 1986 ruling in C.W.T. v. Chander Sen, which held that since the Class I list in the Schedule "only includes son and does not include son's son but does include son of a predeceased son," a son who inherits under Section 8 does not take the property as karta of his own undivided family. "The express words of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot be ignored and must prevail," the Court repeated.

Applying that, the Court held that on the grandfather's death the property "devolved on his Class I Schedule heirs as per Section 8" and "did not constitute HUF property of son consisting of his own branch including the grandson." Under the 1994 compromise decree, "each of the heir became exclusive owner of the property falling within his/her share," the property "ceased to be joint family property," and "joint coparcenary did not continue."

The Court also relied on Bhanwar Singh v. Puran, where property partitioned between a son and three daughters was later mortgaged and sold by the son, and the son was held to have the right to transfer what fell to his share.

What about the Tamil Nadu amendment the grandson relied on?

It did not apply. The grandson argued that Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 kept the property coparcenary in character despite the compromise decree, and that he was born before the decree was passed. The Court held that since the grandfather's date of death was not indicated and the partition suit among Class I heirs was filed in 1993, "the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or Section 29(A) inserted by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989 would have no application." The grandson "cannot become a coparcener as he was not a 'surviving coparcener' on the death of N. Ramakrishnan."

The Court added that the succession opened with the grandfather's death "evidently before the appellant was born," so "there is no question of devolution of interest in the suit property upon the appellant."

What did the buyers argue, and what did the Court accept?

The buyers argued that the grandson, whose father was alive, had no right to claim a share, that the property was no longer ancestral after the partition, and that they were "innocent purchaser of the suit property." They also alleged the suit was collusive, since the father did not contest it. The Court recorded that the father "remained ex parte in the trial court, the High Court and before this Court until his death in the year 2024," but decided the case on the law of succession rather than on collusion.

The grandson had argued that the buyers "cannot acquire greater right than their vendor" and that the father could not sell coparcenary property without legal necessity. Because the Court held the property was the father's exclusive property, those arguments fell away.

What should Bengaluru buyers of partitioned family land check?

Confirm the partition, and confirm the seller's share. PropNewz looked today at a Karnataka case where a 1997 sale is being challenged on a joint family funds claim in the grandmother sale partition suit, and earlier at challenges to consent decrees in the Girishbhai Patel ruling. Before buying land a seller got in a family partition, use this list.

1. Get a certified copy of the partition deed or compromise decree and the schedule allotting the seller's share.
2. Check that the land you are buying matches the seller's allotted share by measurement and boundaries.
3. Ask whether any heir has challenged the partition, and search for pending suits.
4. Ask when the original owner died, since the date of death can matter for succession rules.
5. Identify the seller's children, including minors, and note any claims they have raised.
6. Check that the revenue and municipal records were updated after the partition.
7. Take legal advice where the land is described as ancestral in any document.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Supreme Court decide in J. Rajesh v. M. Kumaran?

On 6 November 2026 the Supreme Court dismissed a grandson's appeal seeking a half share in an 1,811 sq. ft. plot his father received under a 1994 compromise partition decree and sold in 1997. It held the share became the father's exclusive property, so the grandson had no right by birth in it.

Does a son get a right by birth in property his father inherited and received on partition?

According to this judgment, no. Relying on Chander Sen, the Court held that a son inheriting under Section 8 does not hold the property as karta of his own family, and that after partition each heir became exclusive owner, so joint coparcenary did not continue and the grandson acquired no interest.

Did the Tamil Nadu amendment help the grandson's claim?

No. The Court held that Section 6 of the 1956 Act and Section 29-A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989 had no application on these facts, since succession opened with the grandfather's death before the grandson was born and partition among Class I heirs began in 1993.

What should a buyer check before buying land a seller got in a family partition?

Get the partition deed or compromise decree and the schedule of the seller's share, match it with the land on the ground, search for challenges to the partition, note the original owner's date of death, identify the seller's children, and check that records were updated after partition.

This article summarises a court judgment for general information and is not legal or investment advice. Succession questions turn on their own facts and applicable State law.

Last updated 2026-11-08. PropNewz Team.