The Supreme Court has made it clear that if the grandfather’s property has been divided among his legal heirs, then the grandson cannot demand his share in it on the basis of birth. A bench of Justices Augustine George Masih and Sunita Aggarwal in 1997 dismissed the partition suit filed by a minor grandson. The verdict was pronounced on 6 November, details of which came to light on 11 November. The case was of a house/plot of 1,811 square feet in Chennai. The grandson claimed that he had got coparcenary rights in his grandfather’s property since birth, hence he should also get a share. This case was filed on behalf of the minor grandson. The Supreme Court said – This will not happen, because the share received by the father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had already become his personal property. How the controversy started: This 1811 square feet property was in Chennai. The original owner was the grandson’s grandfather. Grandfather’s daughter (grandson’s aunt) sued for partition in 1993. The division was reached by agreement in February 1994, with the grandson’s father getting a share. The father sold his share through two sale deeds in April 1997. The grandson was born in January 1994, he sued through the mother in 1997 that he also wanted half of the share, I was not included in the earlier partition. The Supreme Court rejected the petition. The Supreme Court rejected the partition suit filed by the minor grandson in 1997. The court said that the grandson cannot demand an independent share in the property merely on the basis of birth. The court said – after his death, the grandfather’s property passed to his Class-I legal heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Class-I heirs include son, daughter, wife, mother etc., grandson is not directly included in it. After partition, the share received by the father became the personal property of the father and was no longer the property of the joint family. Reference to 1986 decision The Supreme Court relied on its 1986 decision. That decision said that under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the property inherited by the son is his personal property. Such property does not automatically become joint family property in respect of its children. On this basis the court rejected the grandson’s claim. The bench also rejected reliance on Section 29-A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1989, and the old Section 6 of the 1956 Act. The Court said that in the circumstances of the case none of these provisions assist the Appellant. How did the matter reach the Supreme Court? The trial court had given a preliminary decree in favor of partition. The first appellate court overturned this decision. The Madras High Court upheld the first appellate court’s decision in August 2010. After this, in 2011 the matter reached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition.
Source link
[ad_3]
बंटवारे के बाद पोता दादा की संपत्ति का दावेदार नहीं: सुप्रीम कोर्ट बोला- वारिसों में बंटवारे के बाद पिता का हिस्सा निजी संपत्ति
