Claim of grandson on the property

Did the person who filed the partition suit sign the sale deed before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the sale?  You can revert to the points mentioned in the suit.

This scenario involves multiple property transactions over the years, and now a partition suit has been filed by one of the legal heirs of Mr. A.

To favor Mr. D, the following legal points and case laws may be relevant: Doctrine of Bona Fide Purchaser –

 Mr. D acquired the property legally from Mr. C, who had purchased it from Mr. B. Since Mr. B had obtained the property from all legal heirs of Mr. A with proper signatures and consideration, Mr. D can argue that he is a bona fide purchaser without notice of any prior claims.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – If Mr. A’s legal heirs had already sold the property in 2000, their rights over the property were extinguished.

The grandson filing the partition suit in 2024 may not have a valid claim unless he can prove that the sale was fraudulent or lacked proper legal execution.

Supreme Court Rulings on Partition Suits – The Supreme Court has ruled that a partition suit cannot be dismissed at the preliminary stage if factual inquiries are required.

However, if the property was self-acquired and legally transferred, the claim of the grandson may not hold. Doctrine of Blending – If the grandson claims that the property was ancestral, he must prove that it was treated as joint family property.

 A recent Supreme Court case reaffirmed that merely being part of a joint Hindu family does not make a property joint. Legal Precedents – The case of Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Ors. (2025) discusses ancestral vs. self-acquired property and the evidentiary burden in family disputes. If Mr. A’s property was self-acquired, the grandson may not have a claim.

 Mr. D should present evidence of the legal transactions and argue that the property was lawfully transferred through multiple bona fide purchases. If the grandson cannot prove fraud or ancestral ownership, his partition suit may not succeed.

Thank you sir for your inputs. If Mr.A acquired this property through "tiller is owner". Whether this kind of acquisition considered as self acquired property?

The law that the tiller is the owner was enacted in the year 1970.

This law stated that the tiller is the owner of the land.

Lands on rent came under the government and those who wanted to establish rights over the land, or a compensation had to apply to tribunals.

If A acquired the property on the basis of above referred law, then it becomes his self acquired property.

Upon his death if the legal heirs have jointly executed the the sale deed to sell the property in favor of B, then the sale is valid and subsequent sales are also legally valid, it means the suit filed by one of the legal heirs at this stage is nothing but a mischief hence it is not maintainable