Self-Acquired Property of Father Devolving Under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act Not Ancestral: Andhra Pradesh HC

Property inherited by a son from his father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ceases to be joint family property and cannot be characterized as ancestral property in the hands of the son vis-à-vis the grandson. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that a grandson cannot claim a birthright in properties that devolved upon his father as an individual successor, effectively barring partition claims over such self-acquired assets of the paternal ancestor.

In a detailed judgment delivered by Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, the Court dismissed a review petition seeking to overturn a Second Appeal decision. The bench was tasked with determining whether properties purchased by a grandfather and subsequently inherited by the father could be subjected to a partition suit filed by the grandson under the Mitakshara coparcenary rules.

Court's Observations on Section 8 and Ancestral Status

The High Court emphasized that the nature of property changes once it passes through the prism of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court noted that while Hindu Mitakshara law (now Hindu Succession Act, 1956) deals with the devolution of coparcenary interest under Section 6, Section 8 governs general rules of succession for males.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "When a propositus dies interstate leaving behind his son, the son alone will become a Class-I heir be entitled to succeed to his self acquired property in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and the grandson cannot claim the legal heir status. Further, it is also observed all through that, when item Nos.1 and 2 of the properties devolved upon the defendant / 1st appellant from his father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the properties ceases to be a joint family properties."

Distinction Between Pre-1956 and Post-1956 Succession

The Court relied on established precedents to clarify that the timing of the succession is critical. If succession opened under the old Hindu law prior to the 1956 Act, the property would remain coparcenary. However, post-1956, if a person inherits self-acquired property from paternal ancestors, it remains self-acquired in his hands.

Referring to the scope of its intervention, the Court stated: The Court has the following directions:

"In the result, the review petition vide I.A.No.1 of 2025 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."

Background

The dispute originated from a suit for partition filed by a son (plaintiff) against his father (defendant), claiming a half share in four suit schedule properties. The plaintiff argued that the properties were ancestral Hindu undivided joint family assets. While the Trial Court granted a preliminary decree for all properties, the First Appellate Court modified this, holding that Items 1 and 2 were self-acquired properties of the grandfather (Samba Siva Reddy) and thus devolved exclusively to the father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

In the Second Appeal, the High Court concurred with the First Appellate Court, citing Satish Vishanji Fatnani vs. Mohanlal Dungarmal Futnani and Others and Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and others vs. Chander Sen and others. The plaintiff then filed a review petition under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arguing that the father had died during the pendency of the litigation and that a son acquires a right by birth in joint family property as per Rohit Chauhan vs. Surinder Singh and others ( "(2013) 9 SCC 419": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 75). The Court rejected the review, holding that the legal interpretation applied in the judgment distinguishing between ancestral nucleus and Section 8 devolution showed no error apparent on the face of the record. The Court also noted that any claim arising from the father's death would constitute a separate cause of action.

Case Details:
Case No.: SECOND APPEAL NO: 456/2024
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:46481
Case Title: S. Bhaskar Reddy V. S Raghu Rami Reddy (Died) By LRS
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): J Janakirami Reddy
For the Respondent(s): Varun Byreddy

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 19880