Property inherited by Class I heirs under S.8 HSA devolves as tenancy-in-common and not as joint tenancy; consequently, an heir cannot claim powers of a karta over the shares of other heirs.

on

Facts

Dajiba died intestate leaving behind his widow, Darubai, and four daughters. The daughters instituted a suit for partition and separate possession claiming their shares in Dajiba’s separate property. Darubai defended a sale of part of the property made by her on the ground of legal necessity, contending that she acted as karta of the family for purposes such as the marriage of one of the daughters. The Trial Court rejected the defence and decreed the suit. The First Appellate Court upheld the sale. The High Court restored the Trial Court’s decree. Darubai appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed

Whether Darubai could act as karta and alienate a portion of the property on the ground of legal necessity.

Whether heirs succeeding under S.8 HSA hold the property as joint tenants or as tenants-in-common.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court examined S.8, S.10 and S.19 HSA and held that where Class I heirs succeed to the property of a male Hindu dying intestate, they take the property per capita and “as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants.”

(b) Distinguishing joint tenancy from tenancy-in-common, the Court observed that joint tenancy is governed by survivorship and does not confer separate inheritable shares, whereas tenancy-in-common gives each heir a distinct and identifiable share capable of separate succession. The Court referred to Jogeswar Narain Deo v. Ram Chund Dutt, Nawab Nisar Ali Khan v. Sardar Nawazish Ali Khan, and Azizun Nisa v. Assistant Custodian.

(c) Relying upon CWT v. Chander Sen, Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, and M. Arumugam v. Ammaniammal, the Court reiterated that property devolving under S.8 HSA is inherited in an individual capacity and does not automatically become coparcenary property. Descendants acquire no birthright in such property.

(d) Since Dajiba’s property devolved under S.8 HSA, Darubai and the four daughters each acquired a definite 1/5th share. In such circumstances, the concept of karta-ship was inapplicable. Darubai could deal only with her own share and had no authority to alienate property representing the shares of the other heirs under the plea of legal necessity.

Held

The appeal was dismissed. The High Court was correct in restoring the Trial Court’s decree. Darubai could not justify the impugned sale on the basis of legal necessity as karta because the heirs held the property as tenants-in-common with separate shares.

Ratio

Property devolving upon Class I heirs under S.8 read with S.19 HSA is inherited as tenants-in-common with definite and separate shares; such property does not constitute coparcenary property, and an heir cannot claim powers of a karta to alienate the shares of other heirs on grounds of legal necessity.

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 613; Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.13232 of 2022
Decided on: 1 June 2026
Case Title: Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Augustine George Masih, J.