2025 (6) TMI 1504 - HC - Indian Laws

Ancestral/coparcenery property - vested right of grandchildren in the property of their grandfather inherited by their father upon their birth itself - property inherited by a father from the grandfather are ancestral property as regards the grandchildren or not - Coparcenary and Coparcenary Property - doctrine of blending - Non-disclosure of cause of action - time limitation. HELD THAT - Time and again Hon ble Apex Court has specified that ancestral property is the property belonging to Father Father s father or Father s Father s Father. That is to say a property passed on from any of the three lineal generations preceding the successor is termed as ancestral property. Coparcenary and Coparcenary Property - HELD THAT - There is often a loose ended pleading that there was a joint family of the parties and hence the property of the family belonged to HUF. Similarly a pleading that a property is coparcenary property without any basis is prevalent in many pleadings. Therefore the position of coparcenary is required to be understood - Coparcenary by definition is a narrower body than the joint family. It consists of the propositus and three lineal descendants and no more. Before the 2005 Amendment of the 1956 Act only male members could be the coparceners and hence it was the male lineage membership of the joint family. Acquisition of interest in the coparcenary property is always by birth. Such interest is always undivided. Till the time partition is done between the parties each coparcenor has ownership extending over the entire property conjointly with the rest and so long as no partition takes place it is difficult for any coparcener to predict the share which he might receive. The result of such co-ownership is that the possession and enjoyment of the property is common - Further this coparcenary can be formed only when there is an ancestral property (belonging to the father) before 1956 and the same was inherited by the son who would hold this property jointly with his son as ancestral property. Therefore this was the automatic means of creation of coparcenary. It cannot be done by way of Act of the parties. Coparcenary Property Pre and Post 1956 - HELD THAT - A conjoint reading of the provisions of law along with the judgments laid down by the Hon ble Court would show without a shred of doubt that before commencement of the 1956 Act if a property had been impressed with the character of a coparcenary property it remained the same and it would devolve as per Section 6 of the Act. However if the property was not a coparcenary property before commencement of the 1956 Act and succession opened after 1956 Act of a self-acquired property it would be transferred only as an individual property and no coparcenary would be created thereafter of such property. Doctrine of Blending - HELD THAT - There is one more important concept as regards coparcenary property. This phenomenon is doctrine of blending. Simply put it refers to the phenomenon by which a property is blended with the existing common hotchpotch of coparcenary properties for the common use of the coparcenary. After such deliberate blending the newly introduced property also partakes the character of coparcenary property in the common hotchpotch - Moreover such blending of property must be deliberate and with a clear intention of doing so. Mere permitting use of the property for the family or coparcenary will not attract any presumption of blending - Therefore if a property is thrown into an existing common hotchpotch of joint family property with deliberate intention then that also makes a property attain the character of a coparcenary property. Necessity and importance of pleadings regarding the nature of property - HELD THAT - In law there is no presumption that a property belongs to an HUF or a coparcenary without there being any legal basis thereof. This proposition is well settled. Merely because there is a HUF existing it does not mean that a property also is presumed to belong to the same - Therefore it is clear that unless and until there is a nucleus which has been used for purchase of the property every property cannot be termed to be a property of the HUF merely because the same exists. Therefore in absence of such presumption it is necessary that exact pleadings with material particulars must be averred in the Plaint (or respective pleading) for a property to be construed as a joint family or ancestral property. Non-disclosure of cause of action - HELD THAT - There is no cause of action for the Plaintiffs to sue the Defendants on the following counts i. Since in the present case succession has opened after 1956 the property is vested in the heirs as their self-acquired property. ii. There are no pleadings to show as to how is the suit property a joint family or HUF or coparcenary property. iii. Admittedly inheritance in the present case is covered by Section 8 of the 1956 Act and hence no cause of action arises on part of grandchildren to seek partition in grandfather s property. Similarly there are several other judgments where on this count alone the Plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 because there is no cause for the grandchildren to seek partition in property of the grandfather or seek cancellation of the sale thereof. Time limitation - HELD THAT - It is clear that the Plaintiff has sought other reliefs as a mere consequential relief which cannot sustain once the main relief of cancellation of sale deed has been held to be not maintainable. Therefore there is no question of the suit being sent for trial when there was no cause of action to seek the main relief of cancellation of the sale deed - Since the main relief of cancellation of the Registered Sale Deed is barred by limitation the consequential relief is also are barred. Conclusion - The grandchildren do not have a vested right by birth in the property inherited by their father from the grandfather post-1956. The suit property inherited after 1956 is self-acquired property of the sons not coparcenary property. The present Second Appeal is without merits and does not involve any substantial question of law. Hence the same is hereby rejected.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:

1. Whether grandchildren have a vested right by birth in the property inherited by their father from the grandfather, specifically, whether such property qualifies as ancestral or coparcenary property in relation to the grandchildren.

2. The legal effect of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ("the Act") on the succession rights of heirs, particularly the distinction between pre-1956 Mitakshara law and post-1956 codified law regarding ancestral and coparcenary properties.

3. The nature and creation of coparcenary and joint Hindu family (HUF) property, including the doctrine of blending and its applicability.

4. Whether there was proper pleading and proof regarding the nature of the suit property as ancestral, coparcenary, or joint family property.

5. Whether the suit discloses a cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and whether it is barred by limitation.

6. The applicability of Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly the mode of devolution of property in the presence of female Class I heirs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rights of Grandchildren in Property Inherited from Grandfather

Legal Framework and Precedents: Under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law (pre-1956), a male Hindu's male descendants up to three degrees below him (sons, grandsons, great-grandsons) acquire a vested interest in ancestral property by birth, forming a coparcenary. This was affirmed in judgments such as Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar and Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur, which clarified that prior to 1956, the property inherited by a male Hindu from paternal ancestors was coparcenary property, and male descendants had rights by birth.

Court's Reasoning: The Court emphasized that this position changed post-1956 with the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, which codified and amended succession laws. After 1956, property inherited by a person from paternal ancestors is treated as self-acquired property and does not automatically become coparcenary property in the hands of the heir. Consequently, grandchildren do not have a vested right by birth in the grandfather's property inherited by their father unless the property was already coparcenary before 1956 and the coparcenary continues.

Application to Facts: Since the grandfather died in 1993 (post-1956), the property inherited by the sons is self-acquired property under Section 8 of the Act. There is no automatic right of grandchildren to claim interest by birth. The plaintiffs (grandchildren) cannot claim a right to partition or challenge the sale deeds executed by their fathers on the basis of ancestral or coparcenary rights.

2. Impact of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on Succession Rights

Legal Framework: The Act codified intestate succession among Hindus and introduced significant changes. Section 4 provides the overriding effect of the Act, nullifying prior customs or rules inconsistent with it. Section 6 governs devolution of interest in coparcenary property, while Section 8 provides general rules of succession for intestate property.

Court's Interpretation: The Court noted that if succession opened before 1956, Mitakshara law applies; if after 1956, the Act governs. Section 6 applies only if the property is a coparcenary property at the time of the deceased's death. If the deceased left female Class I heirs, the proviso to Section 6 mandates succession under Section 8, i.e., intestate succession, not survivorship.

Key Findings: The deceased left a widow (female Class I heir), so succession is governed by Section 8. Explanation 1 to Section 6 deems a partition to have occurred immediately before death, so the property is treated as divided among heirs. Therefore, the property devolves as self-acquired property of heirs, not as joint family property.

Application: The suit property devolved by intestate succession under Section 8, not by survivorship under Section 6. Hence, grandchildren do not have automatic coparcenary rights in the property.

3. Nature and Creation of Coparcenary and Joint Hindu Family Property

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Mitakshara school presumes a Hindu family to be joint, but there is no presumption that property held by a member is joint family property. The burden is on the party asserting joint family property to prove it. Coparcenary is a narrower body than the joint family, consisting of the propositus and three lineal male descendants. Coparcenary arises by operation of law through birth, not by agreement or conduct.

The doctrine of blending allows self-acquired property to become coparcenary property if deliberately thrown into the common hotchpotch of joint family property with clear intention. Mere use or benefit by family members is insufficient.

Court's Reasoning: The Court emphasized the necessity of strict pleadings and proof regarding the nature of property. Mere ipse dixit assertions that property is ancestral or joint family property are insufficient. The property must be shown to have been acquired from joint family nucleus or deliberately blended to become coparcenary.

Application: In the present case, there was no pleading or proof that the suit property was coparcenary or joint family property. The sale deed was executed by all heirs, and the property was treated as self-acquired property post succession.

4. Pleading and Cause of Action under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Legal Framework: Order VII Rule 11 allows rejection of plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action. The Court must examine whether the plaint, on its face, shows a right to sue.

Court's Reasoning: The Court found that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action because:

• Succession opened post-1956, so property is self-acquired in heirs' hands.
• No pleading or proof that property is joint family or coparcenary property.
• Grandchildren have no right to seek partition or cancellation of sale deed in grandfather's property.

Therefore, the suit was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

5. Limitation

Legal Framework: Article 59 of the Limitation Act prescribes a three-year limitation period for suits to cancel or set aside an instrument, starting from the date the plaintiff first knew the facts entitling them to sue.

Court's Findings: The sale deeds challenged were executed in 1994 and 1996, but the suit was filed only in 2012, after more than 18 years. The plaintiffs were aware of the sale at the time or shortly thereafter, and the suit was clearly barred by limitation. The claim of minority for one plaintiff did not extend the limitation period effectively because the fundamental right to sue did not arise under the law post-1956.

Application: The suit was hopelessly time barred and constituted an abuse of process.

6. Consequential Relief of Injunction

Legal Framework and Precedents: Injunction is a consequential relief dependent on the success of substantive reliefs such as cancellation of sale deed or declaration of title.

Court's Reasoning: Since the plaintiffs failed to establish any substantive right to the property or cause of action for cancellation, the consequential relief of permanent injunction also failed. Possession was not lawful or authorized, so injunction could not be granted.

Significant Holdings:

"After the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, this position has undergone a change. Post 1956, if a person inherits a self-acquired property from his paternal ancestors, the said property becomes his self-acquired property, and does not remain coparcenary property."

"Section 6 of the Act provides for devolution of interest in coparcenary property by survivorship, but if the deceased leaves female Class I heirs, succession shall be governed by Section 8 of the Act, i.e., intestate succession."

"There is no presumption that property held by a member of a joint Hindu family is joint family property; the burden lies on the person asserting joint family property to establish it."

"Coparcenary is created only by operation of law by birth of male descendants up to three degrees and cannot be created by agreement or conduct."

"The doctrine of blending requires that self-acquired property be deliberately thrown into the common hotchpotch of coparcenary property with clear intention to abandon separate claim."

"In absence of proper pleading and proof of the nature of the property as coparcenary or joint family property, a suit by grandchildren claiming partition or cancellation of sale deed in grandfather's property is not maintainable."

"A suit to cancel a registered sale deed executed more than 18 years ago is barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act."

"Injunction being a consequential relief cannot be granted when the substantive relief fails."

Final Determinations:

• The grandchildren do not have a vested right by birth in the property inherited by their father from the grandfather post-1956.
• The suit property, inherited after 1956, is self-acquired property of the sons, not coparcenary property.
• There was no proper pleading or proof that the property was joint family or coparcenary property.
• The suit did not disclose a cause of action and was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
• The suit was barred by limitation as it was filed after more than 18 years from the sale deed execution.
• The consequential relief of injunction failed as the substantive relief was not maintainable.
• The Second Appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit and did not raise any substantial question of law.