In a recent ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court decided that just because a son inherits property from his father, it does not automatically make it ancestral property. This ruling is significant because once a property is determined to be non-ancestral, then it is classified as self-acquired, and children do not automatically have rights to it by birth. As a result, a daughter lost her claim to this property based on her birthright.To explain further, the Andhra Pradesh High Court concluded that the grandfather had personally acquired the property. Since these were his self-acquired assets and were later distributed among his children (including the father of the daughter in this case), they did not automatically turn into ancestral properties in the hands of the father. Consequently, the daughter could not claim a share in this property by birthright.Also read: Son denies share of ancestral property to 6 half sisters; Andhra Pradesh HC give relief to the sisters and orders property partitionAsha Kiran Sharma, Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva, told ET Wealth Online that whether the property is ancestral or not depends not only on who transferred it, but also on how the transferor himself acquired it. Sharma says: “The source of the title is crucial. If the father inherited property that was itself ancestral/coparcenary property and the property retained its ancestral character, descendants may acquire rights by birth.”However, if the father received property that was self-acquired property of his own father, whether through gift, Will, family arrangement or partition, the property may become his separate property, depending on the facts and circumstances. Sharma says: “In such a case (of self-acquired property), his children do not automatically obtain coparcenary or co-sharer rights.”Even though the children do not have a birthright to their father’s self-acquired property, they can still inherit it after he passes away if the Hindu succession law or the father's Will grants them that right.Also read: Ignoring objection notice for property mutation proves costly: SC rejects relatives' bid to revoke probate of aunt's Will that made nephew sole beneficiaryWhat does Mitakshara Hindu law say about self-acquired property?The Mitakshara Hindu Law is applicable to all Indian states except West Bengal and Assam, which follow the Dayabhaga system. Under the Mitakshara Hindu law, merely because a son got the property from his father by any means, does not automatically make it ancestral property, as the source of the father's title matters as it defines whether the property is ancestral or self-acquired.Sharma explains that the key idea is that a person has full ownership rights over his self-acquired property. He is free to sell, gift, transfer, or bequeath it through a Will to anyone he chooses. Just because the property was inherited from a parent doesn’t mean that the recipient automatically treats it as ancestral property.Sharma also points out that the Supreme Court, in several rulings, has consistently maintained that the classification of the property depends on its source and the intention of the person transferring it. Sharma says: “If a father gifts his self-acquired property to a son for the son's exclusive benefit, the property generally remains on the son's separate property. The son's children do not automatically acquire rights in it by birth.”Example:A father buys a house from his own earnings and later gifts it to his son. The son becomes the owner. The grandson cannot automatically claim a birthright in that house simply because it passed from grandfather to father.