2 June 2026 Legal Updates

After Intestate Succession, Heirs Hold Property As Tenants-in-Common; No Co-Heir Can Act As Karta To Sell Others' Shares: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that property inherited through intestate succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is inherited as tenants-in-common with definite shares, and not as joint family property. Therefore, no heir can act as a Karta and alienate the shares of other heirs on grounds of legal necessity.

Case Details

(a) Case Title:

• Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• June 1, 2026

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Augustine George Masih

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose after the death of a Hindu male named Dajiba, who died intestate (without leaving a will). Upon his death, his legal heirs were: his second wife (Darubai), and four daughters from his first wife. Under the Hindu Succession Act, all five heirs inherited the property equally, each receiving a 1/5th share. Subsequently, the widow sold a portion of the property claiming that she had done so as the Karta of the family due to legal necessity, namely expenses related to the marriage of one of the daughters. The other heirs challenged the transaction, arguing that she had no authority to sell their shares. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised

• Whether heirs inheriting property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act hold it as joint tenants or tenants-in-common?
• Whether a co-heir can act as a Karta and alienate property inherited through intestate succession?
• Whether the doctrine of legal necessity can justify sale of property belonging to all heirs by one heir?
• Whether property inherited under Section 8 automatically becomes coparcenary property?

Contentions of the Appellants

• Property Was Inherited Equally: The appellants argued that: each heir inherited a specific 1/5th share, no heir became owner of the entire property.
• Widow Could Not Act As Karta: They contended that: There was no Hindu coparcenary, therefore the concept of Karta was inapplicable.
• Sale Beyond Her Share Was Invalid: The widow could legally transfer: only her own 1/5th share, not the shares belonging to the other heirs.

Contentions of the Respondent

• Legal Necessity Existed: The widow argued that: The sale was required for family necessity, namely marriage expenses.
• Karta-Like Powers: She claimed that: Being the senior member managing family affairs, she could validly alienate the property for legal necessity.

Court's Reasoning & Key Findings

1. Section 8 Creates Individual Ownership, Not Coparcenary Ownership

• The Supreme Court emphasized that: Property inherited under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act is inherited individually.
• The Court observed: "Property inherited under Section 8 does not automatically assume the character of coparcenary property."
• The inheritance is: statutory, personal, and separate.

2. Heirs Become Tenants-in-Common

• The Court held that heirs inherit as: Tenants-in-Common and not as Joint Tenants.
• Every heir receives: a separate, definite, identifiable share.
• Example Given By The Court
• Suppose: A dies intestate. B and C are his heirs. Then: B gets a specific share. C gets a specific share.
• If B later dies: B's share goes to B's heirs, not automatically to C.
• This is called: Tenancy-in-Common

3. Difference Between Tenants-in-Common & Joint Tenants

• Tenants-in-Common: Definite individual shares, Separate ownership interests, Share can be inherited by legal heirs, Governed by succession
• Example: A dies → B and C inherit. B dies → B's children inherit B's share.
• Joint Tenancy: No separate shares, Single unified ownership, Governed by survivorship
• Example: A and B are joint tenants. A dies → entire share automatically passes to B.
• Children of A get nothing.

4. Joint Tenancy Is Not Applicable Under Section 8

• The Court clarified: Hindu Succession Act replaced survivorship with succession in such cases.
• Therefore: heirs do not become coparceners, survivorship does not operate.
• Instead: separate ownership arises immediately.

5. Concept Of Karta Does Not Apply

• The Court made a very significant observation: Kartaship arises only in a Hindu Joint Family or Coparcenary. Where heirs inherit property individually under Section 8: There is no coparcenary, there is no joint ownership, therefore there can be no Karta.
• The Court held: "The question of karta-ship ordinarily does not arise."

6. Legal Necessity Cannot Justify Sale Of Others' Shares

• Under Hindu law: A Karta may sell joint family property for: legal necessity, benefit of estate, indispensable duties.
• However: Those principles apply only to coparcenary property. Since the heirs here held separate shares: The widow could not rely upon legal necessity, and could not sell anyone else's portion.

7. Widow Could Deal Only With Her Own Share

• The Court held: The widow's legal authority extended only to: her own 1/5th share.
• Any alienation beyond that share was invalid.

Final Verdict

1. Appeal Dismissed:

• The Supreme Court upheld the finding that: heirs inherited separate shares, widow was not Karta, sale of others' shares was invalid.

2. Property Held As Tenants-in-Common:

• The Court definitively held Intestate heirs under Section 8 inherit as tenants-in-common.

3. No Kartaship:

• The Court ruled, No heir can claim Karta powers over the entire property.

4. Legal Principles Established:

• Section 8 Creates Individual Succession: When a Hindu male dies intestate: heirs inherit individually, not as a coparcenary.
• Tenants-in-Common Rule: Heirs receive: separate, identifiable, inheritable shares.
• Survivorship Does Not Apply: The Hindu Succession Act favors: succession over survivorship.
• Karta Exists Only In Joint Family Property: No coparcenary = No Karta. No Karta = No power to alienate others' shares.
• Legal Necessity Doctrine Has Limited Application: The doctrine applies only when: joint family property exists, Karta is managing coparcenary property. It cannot be used for property inherited separately under Section 8.