Delhi High Court Reiterates Principles Governing Claims to Ancestral Properties
- rit arora
- Oct 22
- 4 min read
By Lex Horizon
The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment, has reiterated vital legal principles governing claims to ancestral properties. The Court was deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, moved by the defendants in a suit for partition filed by a daughter against her father and paternal aunt.
It was the case of the plaintiff that the suit property had been purchased by her paternal grandfather sometime in the years 1972–73. She contended that her paternal grandfather passed away on 26.06.1994, and her paternal grandmother on 19.01.2023 — both having died intestate. The plaintiff averred that she had requested the defendants to effect partition, but they continued to avoid doing so on one pretext or another, compelling her to file the present suit to protect her alleged interest in the property.
While deciding the defendants’ application seeking rejection of the plaint, the High Court reiterated the legal principles it had earlier observed and held in Surender Kumar v. Dhani Ram & Ors., as follows:
“7. On the legal position which emerges pre 1956 i.e before passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and post 1956 i.e after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the same has been considered by me recently in the judgment in the case of Sunny (Minor) & Anr. vs. Sh. Raj Singh & Ors., CS(OS) No.431/2006 decided on 17.11.2015. In this judgment, I have referred to and relied upon the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Yudhishter (supra) and have essentially arrived at the following conclusions:-
(i) If a person dies after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and there is no HUF existing at the time of the death of such a person, inheritance of an immovable property of such a person by his successors-in-interest is no doubt inheritance of an 'ancestral' property but the inheritance is as a self-acquired property in the hands of the successor and not as an HUF property although the successor(s) indeed inherits 'ancestral' property i.e a property belonging to his paternal ancestor.
(ii) The only way in which a Hindu Undivided Family/joint Hindu family can come into existence after 1956 (and when a joint Hindu family did not exist prior to 1956) is if an individual's property is thrown into a common hotchpotch. Also, once a property is thrown into a common hotchpotch, it is necessary that the exact details of the specific date/month/year etc of creation of an HUF for the first time by throwing a property into a common hotchpotch have to be clearly pleaded and mentioned and which requirement is a legal requirement because of Order VI Rule 4 CPC which provides that all necessary factual details of the cause of action must be clearly stated. Thus, if an HUF property exists because of its such creation by throwing of self-acquired property by a person in the common hotchpotch, consequently there is entitlement in coparceners etc to a share in such HUF property.
(iii) An HUF can also exist if paternal ancestral properties are inherited prior to 1956, and such status of parties qua the properties has continued after 1956 with respect to properties inherited prior to 1956 from paternal ancestors. Once that status and position continues even after 1956; of the HUF and of its properties existing; a coparcener etc will have a right to seek partition of the properties.
(iv) Even before 1956, an HUF can come into existence even without inheritance of ancestral property from paternal ancestors, as HUF could have been created prior to 1956 by throwing of individual property into a common hotchpotch. If such an HUF continues even after 1956, then in such a case a coparcener etc of an HUF was entitled to partition of the HUF property.”
The Hon’ble High Court relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yudhister v. Ashok Kumar and Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and others v. Chander Sen and others, observing that property inherited by a person under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is taken by him in his individual capacity, and not as the karta of his family. This view was further upheld by the Supreme Court in Trijugi Narain v. Sankoo, where it was held that any property inherited through intestate succession after 17.06.1956 is absolute and individual property, not ancestral property.
On appreciation of these precedents and Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Court held that the share of Defendant No. 1 in the suit property was his absolute property, and that the plaintiff had no right, title, or interest therein. Accordingly, since the plaint disclosed no cause of action, the Court held that no question of partition, declaration, or injunction arose at the instance of the plaintiff. The plaint was therefore rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
Find the order here.
