Mere Recital of 'Ancestral Property' in Sale Agreement Doesn’t Create Birthright: Madras High Court Dismisses Partition Suit by Grandchildren

“Property purchased post-1956 and held by a deceased Hindu with no surviving male heir is governed by Section 8, not Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act—no coparcenary interest accrues by birth,” held the Madras High Court decisively rejecting a partition suit filed by the grandchildren of the original owner.

Justice P.B. Balaji upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the suit seeking partition and 1/8th share in a property originally owned by one Krishnama Raju, whose wife and two daughters had already entered into a sale agreement and suffered a final decree for specific performance in a prior litigation.

The High Court affirmed that the property in question was self-acquired, there was no ancestral nucleus, and that the plaintiffs, being grandchildren through daughters, could not assert a right by birth.

“No Evidence of Ancestral Nucleus—Property Remains Self-Acquired”: Recital in Agreement Cannot Alter Legal Character

The core issue revolved around whether the suit property was “ancestral” as claimed by the plaintiffs (grandchildren of the original owner) or “self-acquired” and therefore governed by testamentary or intestate succession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The Court emphatically ruled:

“Mere reference to the suit property as ancestral property does not clothe the suit property with the character of an ancestral property.”

Justice Balaji relied on documentary evidence (Ex.A5 - Sale deed dated 10.11.1957), confirming that Krishnama Raju purchased the property in his own name after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, and died intestate in 1983. Thus, succession opened post-1956 and fell under Section 8, not Section 6, which deals with coparcenary property.

“There is no proof that the property was acquired out of any ancestral nucleus. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim a right by birth.”

“Final Decree for Specific Performance Cannot Be Reopened by Non-Parties Without Independent Title”: Attempt to Stall Execution Rejected

Significantly, the Court noted that the suit property had already been the subject of a prior decree for specific performance in O.S. No. 69 of 2007, which had attained finality after dismissal of A.S. No. 12 of 2009. The decree directed the wife and two daughters of Krishnama Raju to execute a sale deed in favour of the 4th respondent.

The grandchildren (plaintiffs in the present suit) were not parties to the earlier specific performance suit, but the Court held that this did not entitle them to challenge the binding decree in a collateral partition proceeding:

“Plaintiffs cannot contend that the decree in O.S. No. 69 of 2007 would not bind them when they have no independent right or title.”

The Court further upheld the trial court’s finding that the plaintiffs were "set up" by the unsuccessful defendants in the earlier suit to stall the execution of the decree.

“This suit is a clear attempt to obstruct lawful execution—there is no merit in such a device.”

“Will Not Marked or Proved—But Plaintiffs Still Fail”: Court Declares Succession Intestate, But Section 8 Bars Birthright

While the 4th respondent had claimed that a registered Will dated 21.04.1980 existed in favour of one daughter, the Will was not proved or marked as evidence during trial. The Court, therefore, treated the succession as intestate.

However, this did not aid the plaintiffs’ case.

“Even assuming intestate succession, since the deceased had only female heirs—wife and two daughters—the property devolved upon them absolutely under Section 8.”

Thus, the High Court confirmed that no coparcenary interest arose at the hands of the daughters, and the grandchildren had no birthright under the law. The plaintiffs’ reliance on vague references in a sale agreement describing the property as “ancestral” was dismissed as legally untenable.

“Partition Claim Without Title is Abuse of Process”: Grandchildren Cannot Sue Over Property Inherited by Daughters

Justice Balaji reinforced that coparcenary rights do not accrue automatically to grandchildren when a property devolves by inheritance under Section 8:

“The plaintiffs have not been able to demonstrate that the suit property is ancestral in nature and that they have a right by birth and consequently are entitled to maintain the suit for partition.”

Additionally, the Court noted that the parties lived under the same roof, and the plaintiffs’ first witness (P.W.1) admitted in cross-examination that his father (one of the defendants in the earlier suit) accompanied him to court. This supported the trial court’s view that the partition suit was engineered to derail the execution of the earlier decree.

The Madras High Court’s judgment in M. Murali & Others v. Venkatalakshmi @ Valliammal & Others reiterates fundamental principles of Hindu succession law:

• Section 8 applies to succession of self-acquired property where no male heir survives, and such property does not retain ancestral character in the hands of daughters.

• Grandchildren of a deceased owner cannot assert rights by birth where the property is inherited by female heirs absolutely.

• A concluded decree for specific performance cannot be undermined by persons lacking independent title.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Date of Decision: 17 October 2025