Hindu Succession Act | Property Of Father Who Dies Intestate Devolves On Son In Individual Capacity, Not As Family's Karta: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the property of a father who dies intestate devolves on his son in his individual capacity and not as the “Karta” of his own family.“Therefore, so long as the father (deceased's son) is alive, the son (deceased's son's son) cannot claim any right in his father's property, since Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act excludes the concept of survivorship...
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the property of a father who dies intestate devolves on his son in his individual capacity and not as the “Karta” of his own family.
“Therefore, so long as the father (deceased's son) is alive, the son (deceased's son's son) cannot claim any right in his father's property, since Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act excludes the concept of survivorship or birthright in the case of intestate succession,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.
“A cause of action in favour of the son would arise only upon the father's death, intestate, when succession actually opens under Section 8 of HSA,” the Court added.
The dispute in the matter arose in relation to a partition suit over a property originally acquired by one Ram Lal Sethi, who had two sons. Both the sons had two sons each, who were party to the lis.
The partition suit was filed by Ram Lal Sethi's younger son's son, claiming that his late grandfather effected an oral partition amongst all his legal heirs, under which the suit property devolved upon his father, who was the defendant no.1 in the suit and his late uncle, whose sons were also defendants in the matter.
The plaintiff son asserted that upon the demise of his grandfather, he became the absolute owner of his share in the suit property, being the grandson.
It was also submitted that the property constituted a Joint Hindu Family property, and therefore, both him and the defendants held proportionate, undivided, and impartible ownership rights in the same.
Plaintiff's father as well as his real brother filed an application seeking rejection of the partition suit for being devoid of any cause of action and for failure to disclose the necessary facts.
The Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint of the partition suit, observing that no cause of action arose in the matter.
It said that the entire case of the plaintiff was premised on the assumption that the suit property was his ancestral property in which he had a vested right.
The Court noted that the basis of the premise was countered by the applicants by asserting that the partition had already taken place and the property fell in the hands of the plaintiff's father as his self-acquired property.
The judge said that after the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, a drastic change happened in the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus in India.
The Court said that it is trite that under the traditional Hindu Law, a male Hindu by virtue of his birth is vested with a right in any property inherited by his father. However, it said that by reason of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the grandson gets excluded and the son alone inherits the property to the exclusion of his son.
“Therefore, by operation of provisions under Section 8 of HSA, the property of the father who dies intestate devolves on his son in his individual capacity and not as Karta of his own family,” the Court said.
Rejecting the suit, the Court noted that the plaint disclosed that the plaintiff's father was alive and had acquired the suit property by way of a partition that took place in 1986, which fell in his hands as his self-acquired property.
“Admittedly, the plaintiff does not fall in any of the categories of Class I heirs of Late Sh. Ram Lal Sethi as prescribed under Section 8 of HSA, and the inheritance rights through his father/defendant no.1 have not opened up as he is very much alive,” the Court said.
“There is no question of intestate succession at this stage. Therefore, the plaintiff has no existing, enforceable right to seek partition or claim ownership in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff's alleged 1/5th share is a mere assumption based on pre-1956 notions of coparcenary, which stand abrogated by Section 8 of the HSA,” it added.
Title: AMIT SETHI v. LALIT SETHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1139