Heirs Under Section 8 Hindu Succession Act Succeed As Tenants-In-Common With Separate Shares; No 'Karta' To Sell Property For Legal Necessity: Supreme Court

"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," Supreme Court, in a significant judgment, held that property devolving upon heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) is held by them as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that since such heirs possess definite and identifiable shares, the concept of a 'karta' or manager of a joint family alienating property for 'legal necessity' does not apply.

The Court emphasized that once property is inherited under the statutory scheme of Section 8, it loses its character as coparcenary property in the hands of the heirs. Consequently, one heir cannot sell the shares of others under the guise of family management, as each heir's right is individual and separate.

The dispute, spanning over half a century, involved a step-mother (the appellant) and her four step-daughters (the respondents) over the separate property of late Dajiba. The step-mother had agreed to sell a portion of the suit property to a third party, claiming she was acting as the 'karta' of the family to meet the 'legal necessity' of a daughter's marriage.

While the First Appellate Court had accepted the plea of legal necessity, the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) overturned this in the second appeal, restoring the Civil Court's decree in favor of the daughters. The step-mother then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's findings.

The primary question before the Court was whether a widow, inheriting property along with other female heirs under Section 8 of the HSA, could avail the ground of 'legal necessity' as a 'karta' to alienate the property. The Court also examined whether the parties succeeded to the property as tenants-in-common or joint tenants.

Joint Tenancy vs. Tenancy-In-Common

The Rule Of Survivorship vs. Succession The Court began by exploring the fundamental distinction between joint tenancy and tenancy-in-common. It noted that joint tenancy is governed by the rule of survivorship, where the interest of a deceased co-owner automatically accrues to the surviving co-owners rather than their progeny.

The bench observed that the principle of joint tenancy is largely unknown to Hindu law, except in the specific case of coparcenary between members of an undivided family. Conversely, in a tenancy-in-common, each co-owner possesses a distinct, notionally separate, and identifiable share which devolves upon their own heirs.

Heirs Under Section 8 Take Individual Shares Citing Section 19 of the HSA, the Court pointed out that if two or more heirs succeed together to the property of an intestate, they take the property per capita and as tenants-in-common, and not as joint tenants. This statutory mandate ensures that each heir acquires a definite share from the moment of succession.

The bench highlighted that under the Mitakshara system, property inherited from a paternal ancestor might traditionally have been viewed as joint, but the enactment of the HSA shifted this towards individual statutory inheritance for cases falling under Section 8.

"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."

No Karta-ship For Section 8 Properties

Property Inherited Under Section 8 Is Not HUF Property Relying on the landmark precedent in CWT v. Chander Sen (1986), the Court reiterated that when property devolves upon a son under Section 8, he takes it in his individual capacity and not as the 'karta' of his own Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). His own descendants do not acquire a right in such property by birth.

The bench noted that since the inheritance is individual and statutory in nature, the property does not automatically assume the character of coparcenary property. This understanding was further solidified by the decision in Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar (1987), which held that descendants do not acquire birthrights in property inherited under Section 8.

"Property inherited under Section 8 does not automatically assume the character of coparcenary property... the inheritance is individual and statutory in nature."

Absence Of Power To Alienate For Legal Necessity Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found that upon the death of Dajiba, the widow (Darubai) and her four step-daughters each became tenants-in-common with a 1/5th share. Because these shares were definite and separate, the widow had no authority to act as a 'karta' for the entire estate.

The bench held that the widow only had the right to deal with her own 1/5th share. She could not sell the shares of her step-daughters by citing 'legal necessity' for a marriage or any other reason, as she did not represent a joint family unit in the legal sense required for such an alienation.

"When each of them have separate and identifiable shares... there arises no question of the defendant acting as karta to sell off a part of the property on account of legal necessity."

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was correct in restoring the decree of the Civil Court. Since the property was held as tenants-in-common, the unilateral sale by the widow was invalid to the extent of the daughters' shares.

The appeal was dismissed with the hope that the finality of this decision would end the "long-standing dispute" between the step-mother and daughters. No order as to costs was made.

Date of Decision: June 1, 2026