The Himachal Pradesh High Court, while upholding the statutory scheme under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, reaffirmed that a plaint by a claimant placed lower in the Class-II heir hierarchy does not disclose a cause of action if preferred Class-II heirs are alive. The judgment upholds settled law and is binding authority for courts dealing with succession and rejection of plaints under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CMPMO/457/2023 of BHAGAT RAM AND ANOTHER Vs JAGDISH CHAND AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010284482023 |
| Date of Registration | 26-08-2023 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (Justice Bipin Chander Negi) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh |
| Type of Law | Civil Law — Succession, Procedural Law (CPC) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a person lower in the Class-II heir Schedule under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 can maintain a suit for succession when preferred Class-II heirs are alive? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that in the presence of Class-II heirs placed higher in the Schedule (per Sections 8 and 9, Hindu Succession Act), claimants lower in the list have no cause of action. As such, no right to relief accrues in favour of a plaintiff who is a lower-ranked Class-II heir during the lifetime of higher-ranked Class-II heirs. Accordingly, the plaint must be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the CPC. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Swamy Atmananda and others v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and others, 2005 (10) SCC 51 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Sections 8 and 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; interpretation of “cause of action” as elucidated by the Supreme Court in Swamy Atmananda. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Suit related to fixed deposits of Master Rahul Kashyap, who died intestate; both parents had predeceased him; maternal grandfather (plaintiff) claimed succession; defendants were paternal grandparents; plaint filed despite existence of preferred Class-II heirs. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh taking succession and plaint rejection matters |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and possibly the Supreme Court in similar succession plaint scrutiny under Order 7 Rule 11(a) |
| Follows | Swamy Atmananda and others v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and others, 2005 (10) SCC 51 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that lower-tier Class-II heirs under the Hindu Succession Act have no actionable claim if preferred heirs are alive.
- Emphasises the need for courts to strictly apply the order of succession in the Schedule annexed to the Act.
- Clarifies application of Order 7 Rule 11(a) for rejection of plaints where no right to relief exists due to statutory hierarchy.
- Cites authoritative interpretation of “cause of action” from the Supreme Court.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the hierarchy under Sections 8 and 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and found both parties were Class-II heirs, but the petitioners (paternal grandparents) were higher in the Schedule than the respondent (maternal grandfather).
- Section 9 mandates that heirs at a higher entry in the Schedule must be preferred over those lower down.
- Thus, the respondent/plaintiff (maternal grandfather) did not have any right to relief unless and until the preferred Class-II heirs (paternal grandparents) were not alive.
- The court relied on Swamy Atmananda v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam (2005), which defined and explained “cause of action,” to conclude that there was no bundle of facts entitling the plaintiff to relief.
- Accordingly, the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC, as it did not disclose a cause of action.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Both parties are Class-II heirs, but petitioners (defendants 3 and 4) are higher on the Schedule than the plaintiff (respondent 1).
- Under Section 9, preference must be given to higher-ranked Class-II heirs.
- No cause of action accrues to a lower-ranked heir as long as higher-ranked heirs are alive.
Respondent
- The plaint does disclose a cause of action.
Factual Background
A suit was filed regarding the fixed deposits (FDRs) of Master Rahul Kashyap, who died intestate. Both parents of the deceased had predeceased him (mother died in 2008, father in 2017). The maternal grandfather (plaintiff) initiated the suit claiming rights over the assets. The defendants were the paternal grandparents (also Class-II heirs). The dispute centered on entitlement to the deceased’s assets among surviving Class-II heirs.
Statutory Analysis
- The court interpreted Sections 8 and 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
- Section 8: Sets out succession rules for male Hindus dying intestate with a sequence — Class-I, Class-II, agnates, then cognates.
- Section 9: Mandates preference among Class-II heirs as per their order in the Schedule.
- Applied Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC, which allows for rejection of a plaint that does not disclose a cause of action.
- “Cause of action” was defined by referencing Swamy Atmananda and others v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law under the Hindu Succession Act and CPC reaffirmed and applied.