Granddaughter Has No Inheritance Right in Property Inherited by Father as Self-Acquired Under Section 8 of HSA: Delhi High Court Rejects Partition Suit

“Property Inherited Under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act Is Not Ancestral, But Individual”— Delhi High Court delivered a landmark ruling rejecting a suit for partition filed by a granddaughter, holding that property inherited by a father from his father after 1956 does not become ancestral property. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while allowing an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, ruled that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, as the plaintiff had no legal right or share in the property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

“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 there arises no question of partition.”

Delhi HC Dismisses Granddaughter’s Partition Suit in Favor of Father and Aunt Over Property Inherited from Grandfather

The plaintiff, Kritika Jain, filed a civil suit seeking 1/4th share in a residential property located at C4F/196, Pankha Road, Janakpuri, New Delhi, originally purchased by her paternal grandfather, Late Shri Pawan Kumar Jain, in 1972-73. She claimed the property was ancestral and that she had a birthright to inherit it. However, the Court decisively rejected this contention, holding that under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, once a male Hindu dies intestate, his property devolves on Class I heirs as individual property, not as ancestral/coparcenary property.

“The share of Defendant No. 1 (the plaintiff’s father) in the suit property is his absolute property, and the plaintiff does not have any right in the same.”

Plaintiff Filed Suit Seeking Partition and Injunction, Defendants Moved for Rejection

Kritika Jain, through her counsel, sought partition and declaration that she held a 1/4th share in her late grandfather’s property. She also sought to cancel a Relinquishment Deed dated 12.08.2024, and restrain the defendants—her father and paternal aunt—from alienating or creating third-party rights in the property.

The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, arguing that the suit disclosed no cause of action, since the property had already devolved upon them legally under the Hindu Succession Act, and the plaintiff had no surviving legal claim or right.

“Self-Acquired Property Becomes Absolute Property in Hands of Class-I Heirs”: Court Clarifies Post-1956 Legal Position

Justice Kaurav traced the legal evolution of coparcenary and ancestral property under Mitakshara law, noting that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 changed the inheritance rules drastically. While earlier under Mitakshara law, sons acquired rights by birth in ancestral property, the enactment of the HSA overrode this presumption.

Court emphasized: “After the Act, when the son inherited the property in the situation contemplated by Section 8, he does not take it as Karta of his own undivided family but takes it in his individual capacity.”

Thus, the **property inherited by the plaintiff’s father after the death of his father in 1994 became his individual property, not ancestral/coparcenary, and the plaintiff had no right by birth in it.

“Plaintiff’s Assumption of Ancestral Nature Is Legally Unfounded”: Court Rejects Cause of Action

Justice Kaurav held that the foundation of the suit itself—that the property was ancestral—was legally incorrect, and without that foundational right, no relief for partition, declaration, or injunction could be entertained.

“The plaintiff’s purported right over the suit property, which she is required to prove in order to succeed in the instant suit, forms an integral part of the cause of action... Since the plaint does not disclose any right, it follows that there is no cause of action.”

He further clarified that the plaintiff was not a Class-I heir of her grandfather under the HSA, as her father was alive at the time of her grandfather’s death. Thus, she had no devolving right under Sections 8 or 15 of the Act.

“No Right, No Cause, No Suit”: Court Rejects Entire Pleadings and Terminates Case

The Court invoked Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC, which empowers courts to reject a plaint where no cause of action is disclosed, and dismissed the suit at the threshold.

“In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court is of the opinion that the plaint is liable to be rejected... Accordingly, the plaint stands rejected, along with the pending application.”

Date of Decision: 09.09.2025