Miss K. Jain had filed a case in Delhi High Court against her own father and aunt, saying they both allegedly tried to alienate and create third party rights in her paternal grandfather’s property to deny her a rightful share. K. Jain is the granddaughter of the late Mr. Pawan, who purchased a property in Delhi back in 1973. Pawan passed away in 1994 without leaving a will (interstate), which meant that the property title transferred to K. Jain’s father and grandmother.
In 2023, K. Jain’s grandmother passed away, leaving the property title with Jain’s father, while her aunt became a co-legal owner.
K. Jain says that when she requested a division of the property, her father and aunt continuously evaded her requests on one pretext or the other, and attempted to alienate and create third party rights in the property to prevent her from receiving her share. Consequently, Jain has filed a case in the Delhi High Court to protect her interest in her late grandfather’s property.
Jain prayed before Delhi High Court to give an order declaring her entitlement to 1/4th share in her grandfather’s property.
Delhi High Court says this about Mitakshara school of Hindu law
Delhi High Court in its order (CS(OS) 679/2024 and I.A. 37445/2024) dated September 9, 2025 said that K.Jain’s entire case seems to premise on the assumption that her grandfather’s property is her ancestral property.
Under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, property inherited by a person from his father, father’s father, or father’s father’s father would be ancestral property in his hands and thus, a right to a share in the same would vest in his son, the moment he is born.
The Delhi High Court said that reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Trijugi Narain v. Sankoo , the relevant part of which reads thus:
“In order to decide the question, we must first notice the difference between the joint Hindu family and coparcenary. Coparcenary, as observed in Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT [Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT, (1976) 3 SCC 142 : 1976 SCC (Tax) 252] , is a narrower body than the joint Hindu family. Under the Mitakshara Hindu Law, any property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father’s father or father’s father’s father is ancestral property. The male descendant who inherits the property in the above manner did not inherit the property absolutely as a separate property, but as coparcenary property.”
Delhi High Court says this about Hindu Succession Act
The Delhi High Court said that after the enactment of Hindu Succession Act a drastic change in law relating to intestate succession amongst Hindus in India was brought.
By virtue of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, any text, rule, or interpretation of Hindu law, in respect of which provision was made in the Hindu Succession Act, ceased to have effect.
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, contains certain rules of succession in respect of the property of a male Hindu dying intestate.
The said provision is reproduced below, for reference:
“General rules of succession in the case of males.―The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter:―
(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule;
(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule;
(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and
(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.”
The Delhi High Court said that when the above provisions are perused it indicates that in case a male Hindu dies intestate, leaving behind relatives/heirs specified in Class I of the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, his property shall devolve on the said relatives/heirs to the exclusion of all other persons.
The Class I heirs specified in the Schedule are as follows:
- “Son; daughter;
- widow; mother;
- son of a pre-deceased son;
- daughter of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased daughter;
- daughter of a pre-deceased daughter;
- widow of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son;
- daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son;
- widow of a predeceased son of a pre-deceased son son of a predeceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter;
- daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter;
- daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased daughter;
- daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased son.”
Delhi High Court says that grandchildren who are not children of a predeceased child, are not included in the list of Class-I heirs
The Delhi High Court said: “It is pertinent to note that grandchildren, who are not children of a predeceased child, are not included in the list of Class-I heirs.”
The Delhi High Court said that if Section 8 is correctly appreciated, the suit property cannot be deemed to have devolved on K. Jain (plaintiff) upon the death of her paternal grandfather, her father being alive at the time of death of the grandfather.
The suit property devolved solely on the defendants (father and aunt) and their mother. Thereafter, upon the death of the defendants’ mother, her share in the suit property devolved similarly, under Section 15 (1) (a) of the Hindu Succession Act, solely on the defendants. The said provision is reproduced below, for reference:
“15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.―(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,― (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;”
Delhi High Court concludes that granddaughter has no right in her grandfather’s property since her parents are alive
The Delhi High Court said that when Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act is appreciated and the various relevant judgements about it are seen, it could be concluded that the share of K.Jain’s father in the suit property is his absolute property, and K. Jain (granddaughter) does not have any right in the same.
The right asserted by K.Jain is not recognized by the rules of succession as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Delhi High Court judgement
The Delhi High Court concluded that the plaintiff (K.Jain) does not have any right over the suit property, the next aspect to be examined is whether there exists any cause of action for the institution of the present suit.
Also read: Get full tax exemption on sale of farm land by using this tax provision
A perusal of the aforenoted authorities indicates that K. Jain’s purported right over the suit property, which she is required to prove in order to succeed in the instant suit, forms an integral part of the cause of action for the suit.
Delhi High Court said: “Since the plaint does not disclose any right of the plaintiff (K.Jain) over the suit property, it is held that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for the present suit. For, there arises no question of partition of the suit property or any declaration qua the same or any prohibition upon the defendants (father and aunt), at the instance of the plaintiff, without the existence of a valid right therein. 24. In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court is of the opinion that the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. Therefore, the instant application stands allowed. Accordingly, the plaint stands rejected, along with the pending application.”