Delhi High Court | Partition Suit by Granddaughter Rejected | No Right in Grandparent’s Property During Parent’s Lifetime Under Section 8 HSA
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that a Hindu grandchild cannot seek a share in the property of their grandparent during the lifetime of the parent. Interpreting Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Court stated that when a male Hindu dies intestate, his estate devolves strictly upon Class I heirs named in the Schedule, excluding all others. Applying this principle, the Court rejected a plaint for partition filed by a granddaughter, ruling that no cause of action was disclosed since her father remained a surviving heir
The case before the Delhi High Court arose from a civil suit instituted by a granddaughter seeking partition of property situated at Pankha Road, Janakpuri, New Delhi. The plaintiff claimed entitlement to a one-fourth share in the suit property, originally purchased by her paternal grandfather, late Pawan Kumar Jain, in 1972–1973. She alleged that following his death intestate in 1994, the property devolved upon his widow, son, and daughter, and that after the death of her grandmother in 2023, she too had acquired rights by succession.
In her plaint, the plaintiff asserted that the defendants, her father and paternal aunt, were attempting to alienate or create third-party rights in the property to deprive her of her legitimate share. She sought several reliefs, including a declaration of her entitlement, partition of the property, cancellation of a relinquishment deed executed in August 2024, and a permanent injunction against the defendants from transferring or encumbering the property.
The defendants, in response, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action. They argued that under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property devolved solely on the widow and children of the deceased, thereby excluding grandchildren from succession while their parent remained alive. On this basis, they maintained that the plaintiff had no enforceable right in the property and, consequently, no claim to partition.
The plaintiff opposed the application, asserting that the property should be treated as ancestral and that her share vested by birth. She argued that her grandfather’s acquisition, though self-purchased, assumed the character of ancestral property under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, entitling her to coparcenary rights.
The Court began by outlining the scope of Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, observing that “the short question that arises for consideration in the present application is whether the plaint discloses a cause of action i.e. the foundational facts to claim a relief from the Court.”
Examining the plaintiff’s claim that the property was ancestral, the Court stated: “The entire case of the plaintiff seems to premise on the assumption that the suit property is her ancestral property. Under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, prior to the enactment of the HSA, property inherited by a person from his father, father’s father, or father’s father’s father would be ancestral property in his hands and thus, a right to a share in the same would vest in his son, the moment he is born.”
It then recorded the change brought about by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: “The enactment of the HSA brought about a drastic change in the law relating to intestate succession amongst Hindus in India. By virtue of Section 4 of the HSA, any text, rule, or interpretation of Hindu law, in respect of which provision was made in the HSA, ceased to have effect.”
Quoting Section 8 of the Act, the Court observed: “In case a male Hindu dies intestate, leaving behind relatives/heirs specified in Class I of the Schedule, his property shall devolve on the said relatives/heirs to the exclusion of all other persons.” It further noted: “Grandchildren, who are not children of a predeceased child, are not included in the list of Class-I heirs.”
The Court referred to precedents, observing: “The Supreme Court in Yudhister v. Ashok Kumar held that property inherited by a person under Section 8 of the HSA, is taken by him in his individual capacity, and not as the karta of his family.” It also recorded: “With the enforcement of the Succession Act with effect from 17-6-1956, any property inherited by an heir vide intestate succession in the event of death occurring after 17-6-1956 is absolute or individual property and not ancestral property.”
On the plaintiff’s asserted rights, the Court stated: “Since the plaint does not disclose any right of the plaintiff over the suit property, it is held that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for the present suit.”
It stated: “In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court is of the opinion that the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. Therefore, the instant application stands allowed.”
“Accordingly, the plaint stands rejected, along with the pending application. No order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Plaintiff: Ms. Aparna Jain, Advocate
For the Defendants: Mr. Vineet Jindal, Ms. Urvashi Parkash, Ms. Richa Pandey and Ms. Akshita Thakur, Advocates
Case Title: Kritika Jain v. Rakesh Jain and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7991
Case Number: CS(OS) 679/2024 and I.A. 37445/2024
Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
