SC ends 29-year legal battle, holding that a son becomes absolute owner of inherited property and can exclude his sons
AI-generated summary
The case involved a 29-year legal battle over whether a grandson could claim a share in property inherited by his father from his grandfather. The son filed the suit in 1997, claiming the property was ancestral or joint family property. The High Court had previously ruled that when a son or daughter receives property through partition, whether ancestral or self-acquired, they become absolute owners of their shares.
NEW DELHI: Can a grandson claim a share in property inherited by his father from his grandfather? Supreme Court has ruled that a person becomes the absolute owner of his share in his father's ancestral or self-acquired property and can deal with it exclusively, including excluding his sons. Ending a 29-year legal battle, a bench of Justices Augustine George Masih and Sunita Agarwal rejected a son's plea for partition of his father's property. The son had filed the suit in 1997, claiming the property was ancestral or joint family property. The court said a son's son is not listed as a Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act and cannot claim a share in his grandfather's property. Referring to Section 8, which lays down succession rules when a Hindu male dies intestate, the bench said a son becomes the absolute owner of property inherited from his father, while his own son has no right by birth over it. SC said Class I heirs inherit simultaneously, to the exclusion of all others. "A son's son is not mentioned as an heir under Class I of the Schedule, and, therefore, he could not get any right in the property of his grandfather," it said. It added that 1956 law did not preserve right under personal Hindu law of a grandson to claim a share in his grandfather's property during his father's lifetime. Sec 8 must be read as a self-contained provision governing devolution of property of a Hindu male dying intestate, it said.
Citing SC judgements, the bench rejected the argument that a son inheriting property under Section 8 holds it as karta of his undivided family. Such an interpretation would create two classes among Class I heirs, treating property as joint family property for male heirs but not female heirs, it said. The express wording of Sec 8 must prevail. Upholding HC's order, the bench said a grandson cannot seek partition of property held by his father. The high court had ruled that when a son or daughter receives property through partition, whether ancestral or self-acquired, they become absolute owners of their shares and can deal with them exclusively, including excluding their sons.
The Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal overturned a temporary injunction against neighbours Brad and Audrey Hatcher in Brad Hatcher and Audrey Hatcher v. Restorical LLC, finding that wedding venue Sydonie Mansion in Mount Dora failed to prove irreparable harm from alleged gunfire, chainsaw and airboat noise, loud music, and roaming dogs during ceremonies.
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a Rajasthan High Court application on October 27, 2026, directing completion of Rekha Sharma's appointment as a civil judge. Sharma, who has low vision and a government-issued 40% disability certificate, faced a medical board reassessment reducing her disability to 30%, jeopardizing her benchmark disability status and reservation benefits under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld a $3.7 million jury verdict and permanent injunction for Margaret Reichenbach and her husband against neighbors Timothy Haydock and Susan Moss, who spent 18 years obstructing their Dartmouth oceanfront home construction through trespass, intimidation, and contract interference.
The Supreme Court has upheld the Chhattisgarh government's compulsory retirement of five employees, ruling that the government has wide powers to retire employees to improve administrative efficiency and that aggrieved persons cannot challenge such decisions merely because similarly placed employees were not retired.
An Arizona appeals court has ruled that a woman cannot receive compensation from her former lawyer for missing a court deadline to correct a divorce decree error that misstated a $200,000 family debt as $100,000, finding she failed to prove direct financial loss.
Adam Scott lost his High Court challenge over promises his father Richard Norman Scott made about the family farm. Mr Justice Richards dismissed all three claims on 29 October 2025, upholding two 2016 wills that made no provision for Adam and ruling that two farm tenancies granted to Adam were genuine legal arrangements.