Ancestral Property Under Hindu Law
✅ What is Ancestral Property?
Ancestral property is property that is:
Inherited up to four generations of male lineage,
Undivided (i.e., not partitioned),
Inherited from the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, or great-great-grandfather.
In simple terms, if a property passes from father to son and so on without division, it is considered ancestral property.
🔍 Essential Features of Ancestral Property:
Lineal Descent: The property must have come from the paternal ancestor (not maternal).
Unbroken Ownership: Property must not have been divided; once divided, it becomes self-acquired.
Coparcenary Rights: The moment a male child is born in a HUF, he gets a birthright in the ancestral property.
Right by Birth: Unlike self-acquired property (where rights arise after the death of the owner), ancestral property grants a right at birth.
🧑⚖️ Key Case Law on Ancestral Property
1. C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C.A. Muruganatha Mudaliar (1953 AIR 495)
Facts: The issue was whether a father has the absolute right to deal with ancestral property or not.
Held: The Supreme Court held that a father can dispose of the ancestral property for legal necessity or benefit of the estate, but not arbitrarily.
Principle: A father is not the absolute owner of ancestral property. Sons acquire rights by birth.
2. Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum (1978 AIR 1239)
Facts: The case was about the widow’s share in a partition when her husband died.
Held: The Supreme Court clarified that a coparcener’s share must be determined by assuming a notional partition before his death. His share, after that notional partition, passes to his heirs.
Principle: Rights of coparceners are determined based on notional partition and inheritance.
3. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen (1986 AIR 1753)
Facts: Whether property inherited by a son from his father in his individual capacity would be HUF property.
Held: The Supreme Court held that property inherited by a son from his father after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would be his individual property, not ancestral.
Principle: Shift from Mitakshara concept. After 1956, such inherited property doesn’t automatically become ancestral unless it was part of an existing HUF.
4. K.V. Narayanaswami Iyer v. K.V. Periakaruppan (AIR 1964 SC 1828)
Held: The property inherited from a maternal grandfather is not ancestral under Hindu law. Ancestral property must come from the male lineage.
Principle: Only paternal inheritance qualifies as ancestral.
⚖️ Modern Legal Position
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 has brought significant changes:
Daughters also become coparceners by birth (equal to sons).
They have the same rights and liabilities as sons in ancestral property.
Important Case Post-Amendment:
5. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020 SCC Online SC 641)
Held:
A daughter is a coparcener by birth.
Her right is not dependent on whether the father was alive on 9.9.2005 (the date of the amendment).
She can demand partition and her share in ancestral property.
❌ When Property Ceases to Be Ancestral
Ancestral property loses its character when:
There is a partition among coparceners.
The property is converted into self-acquired (by sale, will, or gift by a coparcener).
It is inherited from someone who is not a lineal male ancestor (e.g., maternal uncle).
✅ Summary Table
| Aspect | Ancestral Property |
|---|---|
| Origin | From 4 generations of male lineage |
| Right accrues | By birth |
| Gender rights | Sons (before 2005), Sons and Daughters (after 2005) |
| Coparcener’s right | Can demand partition |
| Partition effect | Loses ancestral character |
| Maternal inheritance | Not ancestral |
| Can it be sold? | Only for legal necessity or family benefit |
📌 Conclusion
Ancestral property under Hindu law is a complex and evolving area, especially after the 2005 amendment. The principle of coparcenary by birth now extends equally to daughters, marking a move toward gender equality. Courts have consistently interpreted ancestral property rules with a view to balancing family rights and individual autonomy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments