The matter was a property dispute within a family, where the appellant, Birbal Saini, challenged the sale of a family property. The court’s decision clarified key distinctions between ancestral and inherited property, providing much-needed clarity on how these concepts apply under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
NEW DELHI: On December 24, 2024, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the Delhi High Court delivered a judgment in the case of Birbal Saini v. Satywati (RSA 196/2019), which has important implications for property rights under Hindu law.
The matter was a property dispute within a family, where the appellant, Birbal Saini, challenged the sale of a family property. The court’s decision clarified key distinctions between ancestral and inherited property, providing much-needed clarity on how these concepts apply under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Case Background
The dispute arose over a property in Mundka, Delhi, originally owned by Shri Surjan Singh, the paternal grandfather of the parties involved. After Surjan Singh’s death, the property devolved upon his son, Bharat Singh. The appellant, Birbal Saini, argued that the property was ancestral and should not have been sold by their father, Bharat Singh, without the consent of all heirs. The respondent, Smt. Satywati, contended that the property was inherited by Bharat Singh through a family settlement, making it his self-acquired property, which he was free to sell.
The central issue in the case was whether the property was ancestral or inherited, as this distinction governs the rights of family members under Hindu law.
Distinctions: Ancestral vs. Inherited Property
- Ancestral Property
- Ancestral property is defined as property that has passed down undivided through four generations of male lineage.
- Coparceners (legal heirs in a Hindu undivided family) have an inherent right to such property by birth.
- Such property cannot be sold or alienated without the consent of all coparceners.
- Inherited Property
- Inherited property refers to property acquired through a will, family settlement, or inheritance after the death of the owner.
- The inheritor has absolute ownership and discretion over its use or sale.
- Unlike ancestral property, inherited property does not automatically pass to descendants under the same rules and is governed by the Hindu Succession Act.
Court’s Ruling
The court examined the facts, including documentary and oral evidence, and upheld the findings of the lower courts. Justice Kaurav emphasized that there was no evidence to support the claim that the property in question was ancestral. The absence of shared ownership rights among the family members distinguished the property from ancestral property. He noted:
“There is no evidence on record that the property in question was coparcenary. The absence of shared ownership rights distinguishes it from ancestral property.”
The court referred to the landmark case Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen (1986), which clarified that property inherited by a son from his father does not qualify as coparcenary property. The property becomes self-acquired in the hands of the inheritor, free from claims by descendants unless specifically stated otherwise.
The court carefully reviewed the evidence presented by both parties:
- Ownership by Bharat Singh: The property was inherited by Bharat Singh through a family settlement with his brother. This inheritance made it self-acquired in his hands, and the appellant failed to provide evidence to support the claim that it was ancestral.
- Transfer to Satywati: The court found that the transfer of the property to Satywati was executed through legally valid instruments, including a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and an Agreement to Sell. The transaction was deemed to be without any procedural or substantive irregularities.
- Hindu Succession Act: Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, played a crucial role in determining the property’s status. The court noted that property inherited by a son from his father does not retain its ancestral character, and the father has full authority to dispose of it.
Justice Kaurav delivered a decisive ruling, dismissing the appeal and affirming the decisions of the trial and appellate courts. He concluded that the property in question was inherited and not ancestral, and therefore, Bharat Singh had the legal authority to sell it without the consent of the appellant. The court stated:
“The suit property has been inherited by the father of the parties and is not a coparcenary property. As such, the father had full authority to dispose of it as per his wish.”
The appeal was dismissed, and the court found no substantial question of law to warrant intervention under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Justice Kaurav further clarified:
“A grandson does not have a right in the separate property of his grandfather in the presence of his father unless the father predeceases the grandfather.”
