-
by sayum
27 August 2026 7:40 AM
"Where the property of a Hindu male devolves upon his Class-I heirs in accordance with Section 8, such devolution brings about succession in accordance with the statutory scheme and the property does not, merely by reason of the relationship between the predecessor and successor, continue to retain the character of coparcenary property" Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling dated 20 August 2026, held that property inherited by a Hindu male under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, becomes his individual property, and his son cannot claim a birthright or coparcenary interest in it.
A bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that in the absence of specific pleadings that the property was held as a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) estate, it cannot be treated as ancestral or coparcenary merely due to the genealogical relationship between the parties.
Nature of Ancestral Property
The appellant had challenged a sale deed executed by his father and other relatives, claiming that the suit land, originally allotted to his grandfather, constituted coparcenary property in which he held an undivided 1/9th share by birth. He contended that the alienation of the land without his consent was illegal and sought its cancellation.
Court Examines Maintainability of Suit
The primary question before the court was whether the appellant possessed an existing coparcenary or khatedari right in the property to maintain a civil action for cancellation of the sale deeds. The court was also called upon to determine whether the suit was barred by the lack of foundational pleadings regarding the HUF character of the property.
Court Explains Statutory Succession
The bench noted that upon the death of the appellant’s grandfather, the property devolved upon his three sons as Class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act. The court emphasized that the appellant, being the son of one of these heirs, did not acquire any interest by birth because the property had already vested in his father in his individual capacity.
No Automatic Right By Birth
"The distinction between property inherited by a person under Section 8 and property in which a person is already a coparcener is of considerable importance," the court noted, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh. The court held that without specific assertions that the property was held as an HUF, the mere descent from the original allottee does not create a coparcenary right.
Deficiency in Pleadings
The High Court observed that the appellant failed to plead the foundational facts necessary to establish the existence of an HUF or the coparcenary character of the land. It clarified that evidence cannot be used to create a new case that was never set up in the initial pleadings.
"Proof was required to support the pleading; proof could not be utilised to create the pleading."
Exclusive Jurisdiction of Revenue Courts
The court further ruled that the appellant’s attempt to challenge the sale deeds was fundamentally flawed due to the lack of a prior declaration of his khatedari rights. Under Section 88 and Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, such rights must be determined by a competent revenue court.
Jurisdiction Over Agricultural Land
The bench observed that the civil court cannot assume jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of sale deeds when the foundational claim to the land itself remains unestablished. By attempting to bypass the revenue court, the appellant failed to meet the procedural requirements for maintaining his suit.
"The appellant’s case, therefore, fails on both the substantive as well as the jurisdictional plane," the court remarked.
Finding no perversity or legal error in the trial court’s decision to allow the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The ruling underscores the primacy of the Hindu Succession Act’s statutory scheme over amorphous claims of ancestral rights.
Date of Decision: 20 August 2026
