The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that grandchildren cannot claim a share in their grandparents' property if their parents are still alive. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav made this observation while dismissing a civil suit filed by a woman seeking rights to a property in West Delhi that belonged to her late grandfather.

The case, Kritika Jain v. Rakesh Jain, involved a granddaughter, Kritika, who filed a suit seeking partition, a declaration of her share, and a permanent injunction to prevent her father and aunt from creating any third-party interests in the property. Kritika argued that the property was ancestral and therefore exempt from Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act (HSA), 1956. Her father and aunt opposed the plea, contending that after their father's death, the property devolved solely upon them as Class I heirs under Section 8 of the HSA.

Justice Kaurav, in his observation, stated that under the Hindu Succession Act, the property of a deceased Hindu devolves upon Class I heirs, which include the widow, sons, daughters, and mother, but not grandchildren if their parents are still alive. The court emphasized that Kritika's claim was based on the assumption that the suit property was ancestral. The court also pointed out that the HSA brought about a significant change in the law related to intestate succession among Hindus in India.

The court further clarified that when a male Hindu dies intestate (without a will), his property devolves upon relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule of the HSA, excluding all other persons. Grandchildren are included in this list only if they are children of a predeceased son or daughter. Therefore, if the grandchild's parent is alive, the grandchild cannot independently claim succession rights in the grandparent's property.

The ruling also addressed the concept of ancestral property under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, which existed before the enactment of the HSA. Under this traditional law, property inherited from a father, grandfather, or great-grandfather was considered ancestral property, giving a son the right to a share in the property from birth. However, the court clarified that the enactment of the HSA has altered this position, and inheritance by Class I heirs now amounts to absolute ownership rather than joint family property.

The court concluded that Kritika's claim was not supported by succession rules, and the property did not devolve upon her after her grandfather's death because her father was alive at the time. The father's share is his absolute property, and the granddaughter has no right in it. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit, finding that Kritika's plaint did not disclose any cause of action for the suit, as there was no valid right for her to claim partition or declaration of the property.

This ruling reaffirms that grandchildren do not have an automatic birthright to their grandparents' property after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, unless their parent, who would have been a Class I heir, has died before the grandparent.