Holding

Heirs succeeding under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act acquire definite shares as tenants‑in‑common and cannot claim karta‑ship to sell another heir’s share.

Summary

The suit concerned a partition of land and houses belonging to the late Dajiba, claimed by his four daughters and his wife Darubai. The daughters sought a 4/5 share, while Darubai, as the original defendant, argued she could sell part of the property as karta of the family under the doctrine of legal necessity. The lower court rejected this claim, but the first appellate court allowed the sale on the basis of legal necessity, a decision later reversed by the second appellate court restoring the original decree. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act creates a joint family where the widow can act as karta, and whether the co‑heirs hold the property as tenants‑in‑common or joint tenants. Relying on Section 19, Section 30 and precedent, the Court held that heirs under Section 8 acquire distinct shares as tenants‑in‑common and cannot invoke karta‑ship to dispose of another heir’s share. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the original partition decree upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the defendant could invoke the ground of legal necessity as karta of the family under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Whether the co‑heirs hold the suit property as tenants‑in‑common or as joint tenants.

Legislation cited

Hindu Succession Act, 1956s. 19, s. 30, s. 8

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the defendant could avail the ground of legal necessity as ‘karta’ of the family, and whether the parties to the lis, would succeed to the suit properties as tenants in common or joint tenants, since their rights flow from s.8 of the Hindu Succession – s.8 – The four plaintiffs including the present respondent had filed suit for partition and separate possession claiming to be 4/5th owners of the property of late Da, being the successors-in-interest as his daughters along with Di, who is the wife of Da – In other words,

Subjects

SuitPartitionPossessionJoint TenancyTenancy-in-CommonRule of SurvivorshipDistinct and Undivided ShareSection 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956Ancestral PropertyDevolution of InterestLegal HeirsKartashipInheritanceCo-Owner

Judgment

[2026] 7 S.C.R. 1 : 2026 INSC 613

Darubai & Anr.
v.
Kamalabai & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 8358 of 2026)
01 June 2026
[Sanjay Karol* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the defendant could avail the ground of legal necessity
as ‘karta’ of the family, and whether the parties to the lis, would
succeed to the suit properties as tenants in common or joint
tenants, since their rights flow from s.8 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956.

Headnotes†
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.8 – The four plaintiffs including
the present respondent had filed suit for partition and separate
possession claiming to be 4/5th owners of the property of late
Da, being the successors-in-interest as his daughters along
with Di, who is the wife of Da – In other words, this dispute
which has been ongoing for more than half-a century is a
dispute between a step-mother and daughters – The Civil
Court decreed the suit holding the plaintiffs to be entitled to
their ask – The defendant’s reasoning that she had agreed
to sell a part of the suit property, as ‘karta’ to one Dat, out of
legal necessity for the marriage of one of the plaintiffs, was
rejected – The First Appellate Court, reversed the findings
and held the legal necessity ground to be established along
with the defendant’s right to manage the property and so, the
judgment of the Civil Court was interfered with inasmuch as
the sale to Dat is concerned, only – In the Second Appeal filed
by plaintiff no.4, the judgment of the Civil Court came to be
restored – Correctness:
Held: In the context of s.8, the question of karta-ship ordinarily does
not arise merely because the property has come from a paternal
ancestor – The heirs succeed as tenants-incommon with definite
and separate shares, and the property devolves by succession

* Author
2 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

rather than by survivorship – Upon the death of Da, Di and her
four step daughters became tenants-in-common with definite and
separate shares, to the tune of 1/5th each – When each of them
have separate and identifiable shares, in the considered view of
this Court, there arises no question of the defendant acting as karta
to sell off a part of the property on account of legal necessity, be
it for whatever reason, for she only had the right to do whatever
she wished with the 1/5th share of the property that vested with
her. [Paras 7, 8]
Tenancy – Joint tenancy and Tenancy in common – Discussed.
[Para 7]

Case Law Cited
CWT v. Chander Sen [1986] 3 SCR 254 : (1986) 3 SCC 567;
Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar [1987] 1 SCR 516 : (1987) 1 SCC
204; M. Arumugam v. Ammaniammal [2020] 1 SCR 41 : (2020)
11 SCC 103 – referred to.
Jogeswar Narain Deo v. Ram Chund Dutt, 1896 SCC OnLine
PC 5; In re Schar Midland Bank Executor and Trustee Co. Ltd. v.
Damer (1950) (2) A.E.L.R., 1069, at p. 1072 – referred to.
Nawab Nisar Ali Khan v. Sardar Nawazish Ali Khan, 1939 SCC
OnLine Lah 153; Azizun Nisa v. Assistant Custodian, 1957 SCC
OnLine All 83 – referred to.

List of Acts
Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

List of Keywords
Suit; Partition; Possession; Joint Tenancy; Tenancy-in-Common;
Rule of Survivorship; Distinct and Undivided Share; Section 8 of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Ancestral Property; Devolution
of Interest; Legal Heirs; Kartaship; Inheritance; Co-Owner.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8358 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in SA No. 1648 of 2005.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 3

Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Vivek C. Solshe, Varun V. Solshe, Pradeep K. Gupta, Ashok
Kumar Gupta Ii.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Nishant Sharma, Ankur Savadikar,
Kartik Sharma.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Sanjay Karol, J.

Leave Granted.
2. The original-defendant is the appellant herein and challenges the final
judgment and order dated 31st March 20221 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, which overturned the
judgment in First Appeal2 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge,
Nanded, dated 9th March 1999 which was in turn directed against
the judgment in the suit for partition and separate possession3 in
which the present respondent was the fourth plaintiff. The suit was
decreed in terms of judgment dated 20th October 1995.
3. The four plaintiffs including the present respondent had filed suit
for partition and separate possession claiming to be 4/5th owners of
the property of late Dajiba, being the successors-in-interest as his
daughters along with Darubai, who is the wife of Dajiba. In other
words, this dispute which has been ongoing for more than half-a-
century is a dispute between a step-mother and daughters. The suit
property is “land and two houses located at village Sapti bearing
No. 42/B area 2 Acres 23 Gunthas. Bearing No. 83/B Area 0.20
Gunthas, iii) Survey No. 146/C Area 2 Acres and 10, iv) Survey No.
43/C Area 2 Acres 6 Gunthas, Houses: and two tiled houses out
of which one of the house of bounded by East-Road, West-House

1 Second Appeal No. 1648 of 2005
2 Regular Civil Appeal No. 234 of 1995
3 Regular Civil Suit No. 23 of 1972
4 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of Sakharam, North-House of Baba, and South-House of Yadav, ii)
which is bounded as, East House of Sakharam, West-Road, North-
Road and South-House of Baba”.
4. The Civil Court decreed the suit holding the plaintiffs to be entitled
to their ask. The defendant’s reasoning that she had agreed to sell
a part of the suit property, as ‘karta’ to one Dattatraya, out of legal
necessity for the marriage of one of the plaintiffs, was rejected.
The First Appellate Court, reversed the findings and held the legal
necessity ground to be established along with the defendant’s right
to manage the property and so, the judgment of the Civil Court was
interfered with inasmuch as the sale to Dattatraya is concerned, only.
In the Second Appeal filed by plaintiff no.4, the judgment of the Civil
Court came to be restored. Hence, this appeal.
5. Two facets are not in dispute; the relationship inter parties, and the
nature of the property as being the separate property of Dajiba.
The question that we are asked to decide is whether the defendant
could avail the ground of legal necessity as ‘karta’ of the family, and
whether the parties to the lis, would succeed to the suit properties
as tenants in common or joint tenants, since their rights flow from
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 19564.
6. The relevant provisions are as follows:
“8. General rules of succession in the case of males.―The
property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve
according to the provisions of this Chapter:―
(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in
class I of the Schedule;
(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs,
being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule;
(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes,
then upon the agnates of the deceased; and
(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates
of the deceased.
…

4 HSA
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 5

Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors.

10. Distribution of property among heirs in class I of the
Schedule.―The property of an intestate shall be divided
among the heirs in class I of the Schedule in accordance
with the following rules:―
Rule 1.―The intestate’s widow, or if there are more widows
than one, all the widows together, shall take one share.
Rule 2.―The surviving sons and daughters and the mother
of the intestate shall each take one share.
Rule 3.―The heirs in the branch of each pre-deceased
son or each pre-deceased daughter of the intestate shall
take between them one share. Rule 4.―The distribution
of the share referred to in Rule 3—
among the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased son
shall be so made that his widow (or widows together) and
the surviving sons and daughters get equal portions; and
the branch of his pre-deceased sons gets the same portion;
(ii) among the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased
daughter shall be so made that the surviving sons and
daughters get equal portions.
And,
“19. Mode of succession of two or more heirs.―If two or
more heirs succeed together to the property of an intestate,
they shall take the property,―
(a) save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, per
capita and not per stirpes; and
b) as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants.”
7. Now, we explore joint tenancy and tenancy in common. In a joint
tenancy, all co-owners together constitute ownership. It is governed
by the rule of survivorship. When one joint tenant dies, his interest
automatically accrues to the surviving co-owners, and not on his
own progeny. What this means is that while the joint tenancy
subsists, none of the co-owners have a separate inheritable share.
For instance, suppose ‘A’ and ‘B’ jointly hold a property under the
Mitakshara system,if ‘A’ dies, ‘B’ automatically absorbs ‘A’s interest
by survivorship. There is no question of it devolving upon ‘A’s
6 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

widow or children. Ownership, therefore, continues in the surviving
coparcener without any separate succession taking place. As far back
as Jogeswar Narain Deo v. Ram Chund Dutt5, it was recognized
that joint tenancy does not fit into the scheme of Hindu law of
succession. Watson LJ held “The principle of joint tenancy appears
to be unknown to Hindu law, except in the case of coparcenary
between the members of an undivided family.”
On the other hand, in tenancy-in-common, each co-owner possesses
a distinct, undivided share in the property. Physical possession
may remain joint, the ownership of each individual co-owner is
identifiable and notionally separate. Survivorship has no place in
this form of devolution. Upon the death of one co-owner, his share
devolves upon his own heirs according to the law of succession.
To illustrate, suppose ‘A’ dies intestate leaving behind ‘B’ and ‘C’
as his heirs,under Section 8 read with Section 19 of the HSA, ‘B’
and ‘C’ inherit the property as tenants-in-common. Each acquires a
definite share. If ‘B’ later dies, ‘B’s share will devolve upon ‘B’s own
legal heirs and will not automatically pass to ‘C’. The difference in
the two systems determines the nature of property inherited by a
son from his father.
Ram Lall J. of the Lahore High Court in 1939 in Nawab Nisar Ali
Khan v. Sardar Nawazish Ali Khan6, said thus:
“8….The distinction appears to us to lie in this, that where
there is a jointness of title, each coparcener is in possession
of every portion of the joint property while his share is not
defined … Such jointness of title can ordinarily exist in
the case of a coparcenary property only, but where the
shares of co-owners are known and ascertained, a suit
for partition is virtually a suit to enforce a right to a share
in joint family property.”
A 1957 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, Azizun Nisa v.
Assistant Custodian7, aptly captures the distinction between the
two concepts discussed above, as follows:

5 1896 SCC OnLine PC 5
6 1939 SCC OnLine Lah 153
7 1957 SCC OnLine All 83
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 7

Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors.

“18. This distinction between interest arising out of a right
existing in the property and interest arising independently
of any such right is very material when one has to
consider a property owned by two or more persons. The
joint owners may be tenants-in-common or joint tenants
(or coparceners). In the case of tenants-in-common they
own the property in ascertained or defined shares, but
the property has not been divided into the shares. In the
case of joint tenancy the joint owners own the property in
coparcenary and their shares have not been ascertained
and cannot be ascertained except perhaps at the time
of partition. In a tenancy-in-common a joint owner›s
share is inherited on his death by his personal heirs,
whereas in a joint tenancy on the death of a joint owner
the property belongs to the surviving joint owners. In a
tenancy-in-common each joint owner owns or has a right
in his share; in a joint tenancy all the joint owners together
own the property, a joint owner having no ascertained
share cannot be said to own a particular share in it. If
a property is owned by two persons in equal shares,
each is an owner of a moiety in it and each can have
his moiety separated from the other. But if two persons
have an interest in a property, their interests cannot be
separated and must always remain joint. There can be
extinction of the interest of one of them but not partition.
Assets of a company became evacuee property on
account of an evacuee share-holder’s having an interest,
but since the interest extended over the entire property,
the entire property must become evacuee property. In
the case of tenancy-in-common every joint owner owns
his share in the property and his share can always be
separated from the others› share. The share owned by
him could alone become evacuee property. He could be
said to have an interest in the whole property, but since
his interest was derived from his share in the property,
which share could be partitioned off leaving him without
any interest in the rest of the property, it would have
been unnecessary and unreasonable to make the whole
property evacuee property. So it could not have been
intended by the Legislature that the whole should become
8 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

evacuee property. This intention could be effectuated by
interpreting the words “or interest” as suggested above.”
In the very same judgment, the Allahabad High Court, has also
referred to a case appearing in the All England Law Reports titled
In re Schar Midland Bank Executor and Trustee Co. Ltd. v. Damer8
which held as follows: “the unity of the estate and of the interest in
the estate enures for the benefit of each and all and….. each and
all have one undivided and indivisible property in the subject-matter.”
The issue stands conclusively settled in CWT v. Chander Sen9. The
Court held that when property devolves upon a son under Section 8,
the son takes it in his individual capacity and not as karta of his own
Hindu Undivided Family. Once again, employing the means of a simple
illustration-suppose ‘A’ dies intestate after 1956 leaving behind his
son ‘B’. ‘B’ inherits ‘A’s property under Section 8. Under Mitakshara
doctrine, ‘B’s son ‘C’ would automatically acquire a birthright in that
property, and ‘B’ would hold it as karta of the joint family consisting
of himself and ‘C’. However, since the property devolved through
Section 8 succession, ‘B’ takes the property as his separate property.
‘C’ acquires no right in it by birth merely because it once belonged
to ‘A’. This is in accordance with Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar10,
where Sabhyasachi Mukherji J.,(as he then was) who was also
the author of the decision in Chander Sen (supra), reiterated that
property inherited under Section 8 does not automatically assume
the character of coparcenary property. It was held that descendants
of the heir do not acquire rights in such property by birth because
the inheritance is individual and statutory in nature.
Recent iteration of this understanding was expressed in
M. Arumugam v. Ammaniammal11, by this Court as follows:
“15. In Appropriate Authority (IT Deptt.) v. M. Arifulla
[Appropriate Authority (IT Deptt.) v. M. Arifulla, (2002) 10
SCC 342] the issue which arose was whether the property
inherited in terms of Sections 6 and 8 of the Succession
Act was to be treated as the property of co-owners or as

8 (1950) (2) A.E.L.R., 1069, at p. 1072.
9 (1986) 3 SCC 567
10 (1987) 1 SCC 204
11 (2020) 11 SCC 103
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 9

Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors.

joint family property. The Court held as follows: (SCC p.
344, para 3)
“3. … This Court has held in CWT v. Chander Sen
[CWT v. Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567 : 1986 SCC
(Tax) 641] that a property devolving under Section 8
of the Hindu Succession Act, is the individual property
of the person who inherits the same and not that
of the HUF. In fact, in the special leave petition, it
is admitted that Respondents 2 to 5 inherited the
property in question from the said T.M. Doraiswami.
Hence, they held it as tenants-in-common and not
as joint tenants.”
17. There is another reason to take this view. Section 30
of the Succession Act clearly lays down that any Hindu
can dispose of his share of the property by will or by
any other testamentary disposition which is capable of
being so disposed of by him. The Explanation to Section
30 clearly provides that the interest of a male Hindu in
Mitakshara coparcenary shall be deemed to be property
capable of being disposed of by him within the meaning
of Section 30. This means that the lawmakers intended
that for all intents and purposes the interest of a male
Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary was to be virtually like
his self-acquired property. Furthermore, when we conjointly
read Section 30 with Section 19, which provides that when
two or more heirs succeed together to the property of an
intestate, they shall take the property per capita and as
tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. This also
clearly indicates that the property was not to be treated
as a joint family property though it may be held jointly by
the legal heirs as tenants-in-common till the property is
divided, apportioned or dealt with in a family settlement.”
(Emphasis supplied)

Accordingly, in the context of Section 8, the question of karta-ship
ordinarily does not arise merely because the property has come
from a paternal ancestor. The heirs succeed as tenants-in-common
with definite and separate shares, and the property devolves by
succession rather than by survivorship.
10 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

8. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, it has been held
that upon the death of Dajiba, Darubai and her four step daughters
became tenants-in-common with definite and separate shares, to the
tune of 1/5th each. When each of them have separate and identifiable
shares, in the considered view of this Court, there arises no question
of the defendant acting as karta to sell off a part of the property on
account of legal necessity, be it for whatever reason, for she only
had the right to do whatever she wished with the 1/5th share of the
property that vested with her.
9. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed. We only hope that
with the finality that accompanies the above conclusion, the long-
standing dispute between the parties can, in true effect, be put behind
them, by the parties and they can truly move on to a better, more
peaceful tomorrow for all those involved. In the circumstances, there
shall be no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, shall be disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan