grandson would get right in the grandfather’s property.
The principles laid down in the above said decisions throw much light on the subject. In view of the illuminating judicial pronouncements as decided in Chander Sen case supra Schedule-I in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not include a son’s son. When a hindu dying interstate, the first class heirs namely, the heirs mentioned in Schedule-I, namely, son, daughter, widow and brother shall take equally to the exclusion of the other heirs, including son’s son. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in that case that the earlier law which gives right to a son’s son, seized to exist on the advent of the Hindu Succession Act. By introducing a scheme of devolution under Section 8 of the Act, a son’s son of the hindu interstate has specifically been excluded. The earlier position that the grandson would get right in the grandfather’s property did not continue after passing of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has described this position in the said decision as the hindu law giving a right by birth in such property "seized to have effect". In view of this legal position, the plaintiff in the present case did not acquire right by birth in the property which came to the hands of his father by partition after the death of his grandfather. Hence, he is not entitled to get partition in the property. Both these points are answered in negative.
Following the settled positions as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Full Bench of this High Court, this Court is of the opinion that the claim of the plaintiff is barred under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act since he has been specifically excluded from inheriting the property belonged to his grandfather. Hence, the judgment and decree of the Court below deserves to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The appeal has to be allowed.