Doddamuniyappa v. Muniswamy
“Property Inherited from Father Becomes Joint Family Property in Hands of Sons”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court held that property inherited from father (before Hindu Succession Act 1956) becomes joint family property in hands of sons, and grandsons acquire coparcenary rights by birth. A compromise regarding such property without consent of all coparceners does not bind their shares.
The Bottom Line
Ancestral property that is sold and later reconveyed to the family reacquires its character of joint family property, and all coparceners including unborn ones have rights in it.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Original Purchase by Chikkanna
Chikkanna purchased property from his sister Thayamma
Original Purchase by Chikkanna
Chikkanna purchased property from his sister Thayamma
Death of Chikkanna
Property devolved upon his three sons
Death of Chikkanna
Property devolved upon his three sons
First Sale
Sons sold property with reconveyance clause
First Sale
Sons sold property with reconveyance clause
Second Sale to Doddamuniyappa
Purchaser sold to Doddamuniyappa ignoring reconveyance clause
Second Sale to Doddamuniyappa
Purchaser sold to Doddamuniyappa ignoring reconveyance clause
Reconveyance Suit Filed
Sons filed suit to enforce reconveyance clause
Reconveyance Suit Filed
Sons filed suit to enforce reconveyance clause
Reconveyance Completed
Property reconveyed to the family and possession delivered
Reconveyance Completed
Property reconveyed to the family and possession delivered
Compromise Entered
Compromise at execution stage giving part to Doddamuniyappa
Compromise Entered
Compromise at execution stage giving part to Doddamuniyappa
Supreme Court Judgment
Court held compromise does not bind grandchildren coparceners
Supreme Court Judgment
Court held compromise does not bind grandchildren coparceners
The Story
The respondents (Muniswamy and five others) were grandchildren of Chikkanna, the propositus of a joint Hindu family. Chikkanna had purchased the suit property from his sister Thayamma. Upon Chikkanna's death, the property devolved upon his three sons.
In 1950, the three sons sold the property to an outsider, but the sale deed contained a reconveyance clause stipulating that the purchaser should reconvey the property if he wished to sell it in future. Without honoring this clause, the purchaser sold the property to Doddamuniyappa in 1962.
To enforce the reconveyance clause, Chikkanna's sons filed a suit in 1964, which was decreed in their favor. A reconveyance deed was executed and possession was delivered in 1974. Subsequently, Doddamuniyappa filed an execution appeal, and at that stage, a compromise was entered into restoring part of the property to Doddamuniyappa.
The grandchildren (plaintiffs) challenged this compromise, contending that it could not bind them as coparceners since it was executed without their knowledge and consent.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Compromise should bind all
The appellants argued that the compromise entered at the execution stage should bind all successors in interest.
Property was validly purchased
Doddamuniyappa was a bona fide purchaser and the compromise restored his legitimate rights.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Grandchildren are coparceners by birth
The respondents argued that as grandchildren of Chikkanna, they acquired coparcenary rights by birth in the ancestral property.
Compromise without consent invalid
A compromise regarding joint family property without consent of all coparceners does not bind their shares.
Property reacquired ancestral character
Once the property was reconveyed to the family, it reacquired its character of joint family property.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court relied on Smt. Dipo vs. Wassan Singh (1983) 3 SCC 376 and held that property inherited from father becomes joint family property in the hands of sons. The Court reiterated that all male issue, including unborn ones, acquire rights in such property by birth.
Property inherited from father (prior to coming into effect of Hindu Succession Act, 1956) becomes joint family property in hands of sons.
Para Para 12
Establishes the character of inherited property.
A person inheriting property from three immediate paternal ancestors holds it in coparcenary with his sons, sons' sons and sons' sons' sons.
Para Para 15
Defines the extent of coparcenary rights in ancestral property.
Ancestral/joint family property which had lost this character upon a valid conveyance to stranger(s) would reacquire character of ancestral/joint family property if reconveyed back to the family/coparceners.
Para Para 18
Property can regain its ancestral character upon reconveyance.
Any conveyance or compromise regarding inherited property by some coparceners/shareholders would not affect and bind the shares of the coparceners/shareholders not a party to the conveyance/compromise in question.
Para Para 20
Protects rights of coparceners not party to compromises.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
Grandchildren's rights in ancestral property protected; compromise held not binding on them.
Directions Issued
- Property inherited from father becomes joint family property in hands of sons
- Grandsons acquire coparcenary rights by birth in ancestral property
- Reconveyed property reacquires its joint family character
- Compromise without consent of all coparceners does not bind their shares
Key Legal Principles Established
Property inherited from father becomes joint family property in sons' hands (pre-1956)
All male issue including unborn acquire coparcenary rights by birth
Reconveyance restores ancestral character of property
Compromise by some coparceners does not bind shares of others
Three degrees rule applies to ancestral property
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- Property inherited from your father is joint family property, not your self-acquired property
- Your sons and grandsons have rights in ancestral property by birth
- If you sell ancestral property, it can regain that status if bought back
- Any settlement about family property needs consent of all coparceners including grandchildren
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Statutory Provisions
Section 6
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
“When a male Hindu dies leaving undivided interest in coparcenary property, his interest devolves by survivorship.”
Relevance: Governs devolution of coparcenary property.
Related Cases & Precedents
Smt. Dipo v. Wassan Singh
followed(1983) 3 SCC 376
Property inherited from father becomes joint family property in hands of sons.
Basavarajappa v. Gurubasamma
cited(2005) 7 SCC 342
On coparcenary rights in ancestral property.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit
2025 INSC 20
When Children Fail Their Parents, the Law Steps In to Protect Senior Citizens
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
2023 INSC 783
The Landmark Ruling on Property Rights of Children from Void Marriages
Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2015) 5 SCC 450
When Borders Cannot Shield a Parent Who Flees with Children
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
(2015) 6 SCC 353
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied - The Call for Swift Maintenance Orders
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.