What counts as ancestral property under Mitakshara?

Property that descends in the male line from a male ancestor, in which a son acquires an interest by birth.

Is property from a maternal grandfather ancestral?

No. Under Mitakshara, property from the maternal line is not ancestral in which a son takes by birth.

What did the Privy Council decide in AIR 1937 PC 233?

It affirmed that maternal-line property is separate property and upheld the widow’s title; the appeal was dismissed.

Does occasional help from other heirs change the nature of property?

No. The character of property depends on its source, not on later assistance or management.

Can a plaint be amended to reflect title under a will?

Yes, if needed to settle the real dispute; the High Court allowed amendment and the Privy Council agreed.

MUHAMMAD HUSAIN KHAN v. BABU KISHVA NANDAN SAHAI

Quick Summary

Main point: Under the Mitakshara, only property coming down the male line is “ancestral” in which a son gets a right by birth.

The Privy Council held that property inherited from a maternal grandfather is separate property of the father. The widow’s title under a will stood, and the appeal failed.

```

Issues

What is “ancestral property” under Mitakshara Hindu law?

Does property taken by a father from his maternal grandfather become ancestral for his son?

Rules

“Ancestor” in ordinary speech includes maternal and paternal ascendants.
But “ancestral estate” for coparcenary under Mitakshara is confined to property descending in the male line from a male ancestor.
Using “ancestral” in its loose, ordinary sense has led to confusion; law uses the technical sense.

Facts (Timeline)

Ganesh Prasad (Banda, Agra Province) owned a large estate, including the disputed village. He died on 10 May 1914. His son, Bindeshri Prasad, was recorded as proprietor.

To execute a money decree against Bindeshri, the village (Kalinjar Tirhati) was auctioned on 20 Nov 1924; sale confirmed on 25 Jan 1925.

Bindeshri sued to set aside the sale, alleging fraud.

Bindeshri died on 25 Dec 1926. His widow, Giri Bala, was substituted as plaintiff. She sought to amend the plaint based on Ganesh Prasad’s will (5 Apr 1914), claiming her absolute title after her husband’s life interest ended.

The trial court first allowed the amendment, then framed an issue on its validity upon objection. On appeal, the High Court held the amendment necessary to decide the real dispute.

Arguments

Appellant

Property was “ancestral”; the son had a birthright. Sale and later claims should recognize this status.
Amendment based on the will should not reshape the suit at a late stage.

Respondent

The source was the maternal grandfather; under Mitakshara it is not ancestral for the son.
The will gave Bindeshri only a life interest; on his death, the widow’s absolute title took effect.
Amendment was essential to resolve the true controversy.

Judgment

Appeal dismissed. The Privy Council affirmed the High Court.
Property taken by Ganesh Prasad from his maternal grandfather was not ancestral coparcenary property for his son.
On the son’s death, the will’s devise to the widow became fully operative; adverse claims under “ancestral” theory could not defeat her title.
Amendment of plaint was proper to determine the real questions in dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

Technical meaning controls: For Mitakshara coparcenary, “ancestral property” means property descending from a male ancestor in the male line. Maternal-line property remains the acquirer’s separate estate.

Why It Matters

Clears confusion between the ordinary and legal sense of “ancestral.”
Guides title disputes: trace the line of descent before claiming birthright.
Protects valid testamentary arrangements where coparcenary claims are wrongly raised.

Key Takeaways

Only male-line descent creates ancestral property for birthright.
Maternal-grandfather property is separate, not coparcenary.
Courts will allow amendments that help decide the real dispute.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “M ≠ A: Maternal is not Ancestral.”

Source Check: Identify the line—maternal or paternal.
Label Right: Only male-line → ancestral (birthright).
Apply Will: If separate, will/devise can control.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Is property from a maternal grandfather ancestral for the son?	Mitakshara: ancestral = property from a male ancestor in the male line.	Source is maternal line → not coparcenary; son has no birthright; widow’s devise prevails.	Not ancestral; appeal dismissed; amendment proper.

Glossary

Ancestral Property: For Mitakshara, property from a male ancestor in the male line, giving sons a right by birth.
Coparcenary: Joint interest by birth among coparceners in ancestral property.
Separate Property: Owned individually; no birthright claims by sons.