Grandson Has No Birthright In Grandparent’s Self-Acquired Property: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 'Illusory' Partition Suit

"The explicit inclusion of the son and the children of a predeceased son in the statutory scheme deliberately and unambiguously excludes the living son's children from the line of succession." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated August 25, 2026, held that a grandson does not possess any birthright or coparcenary interest in the self-acquired property of his grandfather or grandmother during the lifetime of his father.

Justice Subba Reddy Satti, while observing that the plaint was a "classic example of clever drafting," underscored that mere averments of "joint possession" cannot create a cause of action where none exists under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Suit Filed by Grandson Seeking Partition

The case involved a suit filed by the plaintiff, a grandson, seeking partition of properties that he himself admitted were the self-acquired assets of his late grandparents. The defendants in the suit included his own parents and other family members. The grandson claimed that these properties should be divided into five equal shares, asserting that he held a right to the estate by virtue of his lineage.

Question of Maintainability Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether a suit for partition by a grandson in respect of self-acquired property of his grandparents is maintainable while his father is alive. The Court was also tasked with determining whether the trial court committed a material irregularity by refusing to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC when the pleadings failed to disclose a valid cause of action.

Court Rejects Attempt to Create 'Illusory' Cause of Action

The Court examined the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, which governs the succession of a male Hindu dying intestate. The bench noted that a "son" is a Class-I heir, whereas a "grandson" is not a Class-I heir in his own independent capacity if his father is alive. A grandson is included in Class I only in the specific, limited capacity as the "son of a predeceased son."

Strict Interpretation of Section 8 and 15

The court emphasized that the property devolved upon the surviving Class-I heirs—the son and daughter—upon the death of the grandparents. Once the property is inherited under Section 8, it is held by the heir as separate and individual property. Consequently, the son's own children do not acquire any coparcenary interest or birthright in such inherited property, as it ceases to be joint family property.

Application of 'Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius'

Relying on the legal maxim Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the Court held that the statute’s deliberate inclusion of specific heirs effectively excludes others from the line of succession. The bench observed that the plaint relied upon the term "joint possession" as a facade to bypass the settled legal position. The court held that such terminology constitutes "clever drafting" aimed at creating an illusion of a cause of action.

"The plaintiff, having no right, cannot create a cause of action for partition through the mere pleading of 'joint possession.'"

Condemnation of Vexatious Litigation

The High Court expressed strong disapproval of the plaintiff's attempt to engage in frivolous litigation. Citing the Supreme Court's mandate in T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Satyapal, the court reaffirmed that when a plaint is manifestly vexatious and meritless, it is the duty of the court to "nip it in the bud" at the earliest stage. Permitting such a trial would be an abuse of the process of law and would unfairly subject senior citizen parents to vexatious litigation.

The High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the order of the trial court which had refused to reject the plaint. The Court declared the suit in O.S. No. 263 of 2018 as rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, specifically citing clauses (a) and (d). By this order, the Court effectively halted the proceeding, finding that the suit lacked any legal standing and was barred by the statutory scheme of succession.

Date of Decision: 25 August 2026