Supreme Court Judgements on Ancestral Property| SCC Times

There is no written definition of “ancestral property” in any Act however in simplest terms, it refers to property inherited up to four generations of male lineage without division. The concept of ancestral property is deeply rooted in Hindu Law and holds legal and emotional significance. A person cannot claim the property as ancestral if it was gifted, willed or self-acquired by the ancestors, only property inherited through intestate succession in four generations qualifies as ancestral.¹

Here’s a list of Important Supreme Court Rulings on Ancestral Property

Tribal Woman’s entitlement over equal share in ancestral property

While considering an appeal wherein the Court had to deliberate that whether a tribal woman (or her legal heirs) would be entitled to an equal share in her ancestral property or not, the Supreme Court held that, unless otherwise prescribed in law, denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out. On the facts of the case, the Court pointed out that even though no such custom of tribal woman succession could be established by the Plaintiffs, but nonetheless it was also equally true that a custom to the contrary also could not be shown in the slightest, much less proved. That being the case, denying the tribal woman her share in her father’s property, when the custom is silent, would violate her right to equality. [Ram Charan v. Sukhram, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1465]

Suit by person excluded from joint family property to enforce right to share

The Supreme Court contemplated on the issue of constructive notice under S. 3 Expln. I of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882in cases of compulsory registrable transfers that may have taken place of the ancestral property. The Supreme Court noted plaintiffs’ argument that the suit, filed in 2023, was within the limitation period, as it should be counted from the date of their knowledge of the sale deed. However, the Court pointed out that the plaintiffs failed to address when they became aware of the registered sale deeds, suggesting suppression of essential facts. [Uma Devi v. Anand Kumar, (2025) 5 SCC 198]

Status of self-acquired properties received through succession

In the present case the key issue before the Supreme Court was whether properties form party of ancestral property held by coparcenary or are, from beginning, separate and self-acquired property of propositus and his successors-in-interest by deed of transfer. The Supreme Court held that self-acquired properties which were received through succession or transfer from mother and sister cannot be included in certain properties, as part of the ancestral properties available for partition. The Court further held that the inclusion of the self-acquired properties as forming part of the coparcenary was untenable and illegal. [Shashidhar v. Ashwini Uma Mathad, (2024) 8 SCC 381]

Mere pleading of ‘Oversight’ not sufficient to allow amendment of pleadings after the trial has commenced

In the present case the Supreme Court while entertaining a suit for partition of an ancestral property held that amendment which would change the nature of suit cannot be allowed. The Court stated that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. [Basavaraj v. Indira, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 208]

Daughters have coparcenary rights by birth even if father died before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force

In 2020, the 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, SA Nazeer and MR Shah, JJ held that daughters have right in coparcenary by birth and that it is not necessary that the father coparcener should be living when the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force.

“The conferral of right is by birth, and the rights are given in the same manner with incidents of coparcenary as that of a son and she is treated as a coparcener in the same manner with the same rights as if she had been a son at the time of birth.”

The Court made it clear that the provisions of Section 6 have been held to be prospective. The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. Further, the rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004. [Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1]

Daughter’s right to inherit ancestral property before Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment and validity of settlement deed

The Supreme Court held that the daughters in a Hindu Undivided Family are rightful coparceners with equal shares to their brothers under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Court invalidated the compromise settlement between the siblings due to lack of proper consent from all affected parties. The Court stated a redistribution of the property shares in accordance with the amended law, stating that each daughter is entitled to one-third share in both ancestral and self-acquired properties. The Supreme Court observed concepts that were settled before Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1 governing rights of parties — Prakash v. Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36 restricting retrospective nature of Section 6, and conferment of full rights upon daughter coparcener in Danamma v. Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343. The Court explained the retroactive application of daughter’s coparcenary right recognized by birth with effect from 9-9-2005. [Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahoo, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 360]

Possession of property necessary for woman to claim rights under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

The Supreme Court in the present case held that, the law which existed at the relevant time, stated that the existing property would devolve upon the male child and, daughters would only get limited right to maintenance till, they were married, and the widow would be entitled to maintenance from the income incurred from the property till she dies or remarries. The Court held that as per the family settlement deed which was relied upon by both the parties the property in dispute was specifically allotted to the son and his only male child. Therefore, the widow of the deceased son will not have any right over the property as affirmed by the court, as she was never in possession of the property and therefore she wont get the right as claimed by her under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. [M Sivadasan v. A Soudamini, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1078]

Right of a child of an invalid marriage under Hindu Joint Family Property

The key issues before the Supreme Court was, whether a child born out of invalid marriage can claim a share in the ancestral property of the Hindu joint family, even if the marriage of parents is deemed invalid. The Court recognized that the child should not be made to suffer due to the invalidity of their parent’s marriage. Denying them a share in the ancestral property would be detrimental to their welfare. The Supreme Court emphasized the legitimacy conferred upon children of void or invalid marriages by statutory provisions.

The Court stated that Section 16(3) of the 1955 Act provides that illegitimate children are only entitled to parent’s self acquired property and they do not have any right in Hindu Joint Family/ coparcenary property. [Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1087]

Chance Succession does not give a valid right over property

The Supreme Court while dealing with a case relating to the property dispute between the heirs of the property observed that the transfer by the heir apparent being mere spes successionis is ineffective to convey any right over the property i.e., the chance of succession does not give a valid right. The Supreme Court stated that, “Transfer by an heir apparent being mere spes successonis is ineffective to convey any right.” [Elumalai v. M Kamala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 84]