Ancestor property in Hindu law

Judgments:
Case- Prakash vs Phulvati

AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 769

Fact
The facts of the case involve a dispute over ancestral property between a father and his sons.
The father had executed a will in favor of one son, leaving out the others, which led to a legal
challenge.
2. Issue
The main legal issue in this case was whether the will executed by the father, which excluded
some sons from inheriting the ancestral property, was valid under Hindu law.
3. Judgment
The court held that under Hindu law, ancestral property devolves by survivorship, and a father
cannot unilaterally will away such property to the exclusion of his sons. The will was declared
invalid in so far as it excluded the sons from inheriting the ancestral property.
Legal Principles: The judgment emphasizes the principles of Hindu succession, particularly
regarding ancestral property. Ancestral property, under Hindu law, devolves upon the death of
the ancestor and not by way of testamentary succession (via a will).
Son's Right to Partition: The court reiterated that a son has a right to seek partition of ancestral
property during the father's lifetime. This right stems from the concept that ancestral property
should devolve equally among all sons unless there are legally recognized reasons otherwise.
Relevant Legal Holding:
The court held that a son can seek partition during his father's lifetime to ancestral property.
This principle ensures that the rights of sons in ancestral property are safeguarded under Hindu
law, preventing unilateral disinheritance by the father through a will.
Case- Danamma @suman surpur vs Amar

AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 721

Facts:
The case involves a Hindu joint family governed by the Mitakshara law. There is joint family
property owned collectively by all coparceners. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended
in 2005 to grant equal rights to daughters in coparcenary property.
Issue:
Whether daughters and sons have the right to seek partition of ancestral property during their
father's lifetime, under the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Judgment and Court's Holding:
The court referred to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005, which
grants daughters equal rights as sons in coparcenary property. It was affirmed that daughters,
by birth, have the same rights and liabilities as sons in ancestral property. This includes the
right to seek partition. The court cited precedents and interpretations that under the Mitakshara
law, coparceners have the inherent right to seek partition at any time, regardless of whether the
father is alive or deceased. Emphasizing the principle of gender equality, the court held that
daughters can exercise their coparcenary rights during their father's lifetime, just as sons can.
The court applied these principles to the specific case, affirming that both daughters and sons
of a coparcener are entitled to partition their share in ancestral property during the father’s
lifetime.
Case- Rohit Chauhan vs Surinder Singh

AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 3525

Background: Rohit Chauhan is the sole plaintiff. His grandfather, Budhu, had three sons: Gulab
Singh, Zile Singh, and Ram Kumar. Gulab Singh, Rohit's father, is the second defendant, and
Surinder Singh, Zile Singh’s son, is the first defendant. Budhu’s property was divided among
his three sons, each getting 72 Kanals. Budhu kept 18 Kanals for himself. After Budhu’s death,
his 18 Kanals were further divided, giving Gulab Singh an additional 6 Kanals, making his
total 96 Kanals. Gulab Singh also acquired 8 Kanals from the family income, making his total
104 Kanals. Gulab Singh sold 8 Kanals in 2000 to defendants 3 to 5. He gifted 96 Kanals to
Surinder Singh in 2004.
Plaintiff’s Claim: Rohit Chauhan claimed the property was ancestral and therefore could not
be sold or gifted by his father without legal necessity. He requested the court to declare the sale
and gift deeds void.
Defendant’s Stand:
Surinder Singh argued that Gulab Singh was living with him and gave him the property out of
love and service. The defendants claimed the property became Gulab Singh’s self-acquired
property after partition, allowing him to dispose of it as he wished.
Trial Court’s Decision:
The trial court agreed with Rohit, stating the property became coparcenary (joint family
property) once Rohit was born, and thus could not be alienated without necessity.
Appellate Court’s Decision:
The appellate court reversed this decision, stating the property became Gulab Singh’s self-
acquired property after partition, and he could freely dispose of it.
High Court’s Decision:
The High Court dismissed Rohit’s appeal, supporting the appellate court’s view.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court sided with Rohit, stating that while the property was separate when Gulab
Singh got it, it became coparcenary when Rohit was born. Therefore, Gulab Singh could not
have legally sold or gifted the property without necessity. The key point is:
"We are further of the opinion that so long, on partition an ancestral property remains in the
hand of a single person, it has to be treated as a separate property and such a person shall be
entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property treating it to be his separate property but if a
son is subsequently born, the alienation made before the birth cannot be questioned. But, the
moment a son is born, the property becomes a coparcenary property and the son would acquire
interest in that and become a coparcener."
The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s decision, invalidating the sale and gift deeds
executed by Gulab Singh after Rohit’s birth.
Case- Hardeo Rai vs Sakuntala Devi

AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2489

Background:
The appellant is dissatisfied with the Patna High Court's decision from November 16, 2006,
which reversed an earlier judgment in his favor from September 15, 1997. The appellant and
the father of the respondents entered into an agreement on April 10, 1978, to sell a property in
Begusarai. The appellant claimed that the joint family property had been partitioned and each
co-sharer had separate portions. The respondents' father paid part of the total consideration
and was put in possession of most of the land, with the remaining payment due in four
months.Despite receiving notice, the appellant did not execute the sale deed, leading to the
respondents filing a suit for specific performance.
Court Proceedings:
The appellant argued that he was forced to sign blank papers and that the property was joint
family property. Witnesses supported the respondents' case, while the appellant and his
witnesses claimed joint possession of the property. The trial court decreed in favour of the
respondents, disbelieving the appellant's claims of coercion but not addressing the jointness of
the property. The first appellate court reversed this, stating the property was joint family
property. The Division Bench of the High Court restored the trial court's decision in favour of
the respondents.
Supreme Court's Findings: The Supreme Court highlighted the difference between Mitakshara
Coparcenary property and joint family property. It noted that a coparcenary property becomes
clear and identifiable upon intention to partition, allowing individual co-parceners to sell their
share. The court stated that "For the purpose of assigning one's interest in the property, it
was not necessary that partition by metes and bounds amongst the coparceners must take
place. When an intention is expressed to partition the coparcenary property, the share of
each of the coparceners becomes clear and ascertainable. Once the share of a co-parcener
is determined, it ceases to be a coparcenary property. The parties in such an event would
not possess the property as 'joint tenants' but as 'tenants in common'." The Supreme Court
concluded that the appellant had separate possession of the property, supporting the
respondents' claim.
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment in favor of the respondents.