Property Inherited Under Section 8 Hindu Succession Act Is Individual Holding; Widow Cannot Sell It As 'Karta' For Legal Necessity: Supreme Court

Supreme Court, in a significant judgment, has clarified that when a male Hindu dies intestate, his separate property devolves upon his heirs as "tenants-in-common" and not as "joint tenants."

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that since such heirs possess definite and identifiable shares under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act (HSA), the concept of a 'Karta' acting for the family to alienate property under 'legal necessity' does not apply.

The Court held that once property is inherited in an individual capacity through statutory succession, it loses the character of joint family property. Consequently, one heir cannot unilaterally sell the shares of other co-heirs by claiming the status of a manager or Karta of the family.

The dispute, spanning over five decades, involved the estate of one Dajiba, who died intestate leaving behind his separate property. The claimants were his widow, Darubai (the appellant), and his four daughters (the respondents). Darubai had attempted to sell a portion of the property to a third party, claiming she was acting as the 'Karta' of the family to meet the 'legal necessity' of expenses for one daughter's marriage.

While the Civil Court initially rejected the widow's claim and decreed the suit in favor of the daughters, the First Appellate Court reversed this finding, allowing the sale on grounds of legal necessity. However, the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) eventually restored the trial court's decree, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The primary question before the Court was whether a widow, succeeding to her husband’s separate property along with his daughters under Section 8 of the HSA, could avail the ground of 'legal necessity' as a 'Karta' to alienate the suit property. The Court also examined whether such heirs inherit the property as joint tenants or as tenants-in-common.

Nature Of Devolution Under Section 8 Of HSA

The Court began by analyzing the general rules of succession for male Hindus under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It noted that under Section 8, the property of a male dying intestate first devolves upon Class I heirs, which includes the widow and daughters.

The bench emphasized that the mode of succession is governed by Section 19 of the Act, which explicitly states that if two or more heirs succeed together, they take the property as "tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants."

Distinction Between Joint Tenancy And Tenancy-In-Common

The Court meticulously explained the difference between the two systems of co-ownership. In a joint tenancy, the rule of survivorship applies, where the interest of a deceased co-owner automatically accrues to the survivors. However, in a tenancy-in-common, each co-owner possesses a distinct and notionally separate share that devolves upon their own heirs.

Quoting the Allahabad High Court's decision in Azizun Nisa v. Assistant Custodian, the bench noted that in a tenancy-in-common, "each joint owner owns or has a right in his share," and their interests can be separated and identified even before a physical partition.

"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 Birthright In Property Inherited Via Section 8

The Court relied on the landmark precedent in CWT v. Chander Sen, where it was settled that property inherited under Section 8 does not automatically assume the character of coparcenary property. The bench reiterated that the descendants of an heir do not acquire any right in such property by birth because the inheritance is purely individual and statutory.

It was observed that when a son or widow inherits property under Section 8, they take it in their individual capacity. Therefore, the property does not become part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) in the traditional sense that would allow for a 'Karta' to manage it.

Inapplicability Of Karta’s Power Of Alienation

Applying these principles to the facts, the Court held that upon Dajiba’s death, his widow and four daughters became tenants-in-common with a 1/5th share each. Because these shares were definite and separate, the widow had no authority to act as a 'Karta' for her step-daughters.

The bench remarked that since the shares were identifiable, the question of the defendant acting as a Karta to sell property for "legal necessity" simply does not arise. The widow only had the right to alienate her own 1/5th share and could not bind the shares of the other heirs.

"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 dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. It concluded that the widow’s attempt to sell the property as a Karta was legally unsustainable as the heirs held the property as tenants-in-common with individual rights. The Court expressed hope that this finality would allow the parties to move past the long-standing dispute.

Date of Decision: June 1, 2026