Darubai and Anotherv.Kamalabai and Others

Legal Analysis: Darubai and Another v. Kamalabai and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 613

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol &  Justice Augustine George Masih

Date of Decision: June 1, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13232 of 2022 against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench dated 31st March 2022.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The dispute, ongoing for over half a century, was between the step‑mother (defendant) and step‑daughters (plaintiffs) over the property of late Dajiba, who died intestate. The plaintiffs claimed 4/5th share as daughters, while the defendant (wife) claimed 1/5th. The defendant sold a portion of the property to one Dattatraya, claiming legal necessity as the ‘karta’ of the family. The Trial Court decreed the suit rejecting the legal necessity defence. The First Appellate Court reversed, holding that legal necessity was established. The High Court, in Second Appeal, restored the Trial Court’s decree. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that upon Dajiba’s death, the property devolved under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 upon his widow and daughters as tenants‑in‑common with definite and separate shares (1/5th each). Consequently, no one could act as ‘karta’ of a Hindu Undivided Family because the property was not coparcenary property. The step‑mother had no authority to sell any portion beyond her own 1/5th share, and the ground of legal necessity was irrelevant.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Darubai and Another v. Kamalabai and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 613

Civil Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13232 of 2022

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol (author) and Justice Augustine George Masih

Date of Decision: June 1, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Final judgment and order dated 31st March 2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, in Second Appeal No. 133 of 1999.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 8 (general rules of succession for male intestate – property devolves upon Class I heirs), Section 10 (distribution among Class I heirs – widow takes one share, each daughter takes one share), Section 19 (two or more heirs succeed as tenants‑in‑common, not as joint tenants), Section 30 (power of Hindu to dispose of his share by will).

• Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Not directly invoked but principles of tenancy‑in‑common and joint tenancy discussed.

• Mitakshara law – Coparcenary property, survivorship, concept of karta.

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• CWT v. Chander Sen (1986) 3 SCC 567 – Property devolving upon a son under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act is taken by him in his individual capacity and not as karta of his own Hindu Undivided Family.

• Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar (1987) 1 SCC 204 – Reiterated that property inherited under Section 8 does not automatically become coparcenary property; descendants do not acquire rights by birth.

• Appropriate Authority (IT Deptt.) v. M. Arifulla (2002) 10 SCC 342 – Property inherited under Section 8 is the individual property of the heir, held as tenants‑in‑common, not as joint tenants.

• Jogeswar Narain Deo v. Ram Chund Dutt (1896) 23 Cal 670 – Joint tenancy is unknown to Hindu law except in the case of coparcenary between members of an undivided family.

• Nawab Nisar Ali Khan v. Sardar Nawazish Ali Khan (1939) ILR 20 Luck 457 – Distinction between jointness of title (coparcenary) and defined shares (tenancy‑in‑common).

• Azizun Nisa v. Assistant Custodian (1957) All LJ 245 – Difference between tenants‑in‑common and joint tenants – in tenancy‑in‑common each co‑owner has a defined share that devolves on his heirs.

3. Relevant Facts

The dispute relates to agricultural land and two houses in village Sapti, which was the separate property of late Dajiba (since no dispute on that point). Dajiba died intestate leaving behind his widow (Darubai, defendant/appellant) and four daughters (Kamalabai and three other plaintiffs). The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession claiming to be 4/5th owners (each daughter 1/5th), while the widow claimed 1/5th share.

During the proceedings, the defendant sold a portion of the suit property to one Dattatraya, claiming that she acted as ‘karta’ of the family and that the sale was for legal necessity (specifically, for the marriage of one of the plaintiffs). The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to their shares and rejecting the legal necessity defence. The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s finding on the sale, holding that legal necessity was established and that the defendant had the right to manage the property as karta.

The plaintiff No.4 filed a Second Appeal before the High Court. The High Court restored the Trial Court’s decree, holding that upon Dajiba’s death, the property devolved under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the heirs became tenants‑in‑common with definite shares. Therefore, the defendant could not act as karta for the entire property. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

4. Issues

Issue No. 1: Whether upon the death of Dajiba (a male Hindu dying intestate after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956), his widow and daughters succeeded to his property as tenants‑in‑common with definite and separate shares, or as coparceners/joint tenants with survivorship.

Issue No. 2: Whether the widow could act as ‘karta’ of a Hindu Undivided Family and sell a portion of the suit property on the ground of legal necessity, binding the other co‑heirs.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Devolution under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 creates tenancy‑in‑common, not joint tenancy or coparcenary (Paras 6-8).

The Court examined Sections 8, 10 and 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Under Section 8, the property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves firstly upon Class I heirs. Section 10 provides that the widow shall take one share, and the surviving sons and daughters and the mother shall each take one share (per capita distribution). Section 19 explicitly 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.

The Court held that the legislature consciously rejected the joint tenancy/survivorship model in favour of tenancy‑in‑common. In tenancy‑in‑common, each co‑owner possesses a distinct, undivided share in the property. Survivorship has no place; upon the death of one co‑owner, his/her share devolves upon his/her own heirs according to the law of succession, not upon the surviving co‑owners.

B. Property inherited under Section 8 is the individual property of the heir, not coparcenary property (Paras 14-17).

Relying on the settled position in CWT v. Chander Sen, Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar and M. Arifulla, the Court held that when property devolves upon a son (or any heir) under Section 8, the heir takes it in his/her individual capacity and not as karta of a Hindu Undivided Family. The descendant of such heir does not acquire any right by birth in that property. The property does not assume the character of coparcenary property merely because it came from a paternal ancestor. The Court also referred to Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, which empowers any Hindu to dispose of his share by will, and the Explanation to Section 30 which treats the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary as property capable of disposition. This indicates that even coparcenary interest is treated akin to self‑acquired property for testamentary disposition.

C. In the present case, upon Dajiba’s death, all five heirs (widow and four daughters) became tenants‑in‑common with 1/5th share each (Para 8).

Since each heir had a definite and separate share (1/5th), there was no coparcenary and no question of any one of them acting as ‘karta’ of a joint family. The widow (defendant) had no authority to sell any portion of the property beyond her own 1/5th share. The ground of legal necessity, even if established, could not bind the other co‑heirs because there was no joint family property or coparcenary. The sale to Dattatraya was therefore invalid to the extent it affected the shares of the daughters. The High Court correctly restored the Trial Court’s decree.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the heirs of a male Hindu dying intestate succeed as tenants‑in‑common with definite and separate shares, not as joint tenants or coparceners. Section 19 of the Act makes this explicit.

• Property inherited under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is the individual property of the heir. It does not become coparcenary property, and the heir does not hold it as karta of a Hindu Undivided Family. Descendants of such heir acquire no right by birth in that property.

• A widow or any other Class I heir cannot claim to act as ‘karta’ of the family for the purpose of alienating the property of the deceased on the ground of legal necessity, because after devolution under Section 8, there is no joint family property or coparcenary. Each heir holds only his/her own defined share.

• The concept of ‘karta’ is a feature of Mitakshara coparcenary and does not apply to tenancy‑in‑common created by statutory succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis

The Court first noted that two facets were undisputed: the relationship between the parties and the nature of the property as the separate property of Dajiba (not ancestral). The core question was whether the widow (defendant) could avail the ground of legal necessity as ‘karta’ of the family.

The Court then traced the legal distinction between joint tenancy (with survivorship) and tenancy‑in‑common. It quoted from Jogeswar Narain Deo that joint tenancy is unknown to Hindu law except in coparcenary. It quoted from Azizun Nisa explaining that tenants‑in‑common own property in ascertained shares, while joint tenants own property in coparcenary with unascertained shares.

The Court then examined the scheme of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 8 provides for devolution upon Class I heirs. Section 10 prescribes the shares: the widow takes one share; each daughter takes one share. Section 19 mandates that two or more heirs succeed as tenants‑in‑common and not as joint tenants. This was a deliberate departure from the Mitakshara coparcenary model.

The Court then applied the binding precedent of CWT v. Chander Sen and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar to hold that property inherited under Section 8 is the individual property of the heir. The widow did not become karta of any joint family; she and the daughters each acquired a 1/5th undivided but definite share. Consequently, the widow had no authority to sell any portion of the suit property beyond her own 1/5th share. The ground of legal necessity (marriage of a daughter) was irrelevant because there was no joint family property that could be alienated by a karta. The sale to Dattatraya was invalid to the extent it affected the daughters’ shares.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s judgment.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment correctly applies the settled position of law under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It reaffirms the distinction between tenancy‑in‑common and coparcenary, and the principle that property devolving under Section 8 does not become coparcenary property. The Court’s reliance on Chander Sen and Yudhishter is impeccable. The judgment provides clarity to litigants in family disputes involving succession after 1956: the heirs hold as tenants‑in‑common, and the concept of karta or legal necessity does not apply to such property. The Court also rightly rejected the argument that the widow could act as karta for the whole property, which would have been contrary to the statutory scheme.

Potential concerns: The judgment is relatively brief and does not discuss the possibility that the parties might have treated the property as joint family property after Dajiba’s death (by blending or by common intention). However, the parties themselves did not dispute that the property was Dajiba’s separate property, and the widow claimed to act as karta of the family, not that there was a coparcenary. The Court correctly held that under the statutory scheme, mere failure to partition does not convert tenancy‑in‑common into coparcenary. Another concern is that the judgment does not explicitly address the effect of the sale to Dattatraya – whether it was wholly void or voidable only to the extent of the widow’s share. But the plaintiffs had sought partition and separate possession, and the decree would effectively protect their shares.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in all cases where a widow or a son claims to act as karta of a Hindu Undivided Family after inheriting property under Section 8. It clarifies that such property is not coparcenary and that each heir has a defined share. It also reinforces that the ground of legal necessity is not available to alienate the shares of other co‑heirs in the absence of a joint family. The judgment will help resolve many family disputes where one heir tries to dispose of the entire property claiming to be the manager.

9. Final Outcome

The Civil Appeal was dismissed.

• The Supreme Court held that upon the death of Dajiba, his property devolved under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 upon his widow (Darubai) and four daughters (including Kamalabai) as tenants‑in‑common with 1/5th share each.

• No coparcenary or joint family property existed; therefore, no one could act as ‘karta’ of a Hindu Undivided Family.

• The widow’s sale of a portion of the suit property to Dattatraya on the ground of legal necessity was invalid to the extent it affected the shares of the daughters.

• The High Court’s judgment restoring the Trial Court’s decree was affirmed.

• No order as to costs.

• Pending applications stood disposed of.

10. Practical Application

For a legal heir of a male Hindu who died intestate after 1956: You succeed as a tenant‑in‑common with a definite share. You do not become a coparcener. You cannot act as karta of a joint family for the inherited property. You can alienate only your own share, not the shares of other co‑heirs. If another heir claims to sell the entire property on the ground of legal necessity, challenge the sale as invalid beyond that heir’s share.

For a widow who inherits property under Section 8: You take a share (along with children and mother of the deceased). You do not become karta of a Hindu Undivided Family. You cannot sell or mortgage the shares of other heirs. You may sell your own share, but the buyer will only get your undivided share, subject to partition.

For a legal practitioner drafting a partition suit: When the deceased died intestate after 1956, plead that the property devolved under Sections 8 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act. Specifically invoke Section 19 to assert that the heirs succeeded as tenants‑in‑common, not as joint tenants. Reject any claim that any heir can act as karta or that legal necessity binds other co‑heirs. Cite Chander Sen and Yudhishter to argue that the property is individual property of each heir, not coparcenary.

For a buyer purchasing property from a single heir of an intestate: Verify the share of the seller. Obtain a no‑objection from other co‑heirs or ensure that the seller has obtained a decree of partition specifically allotting the property to the seller. Otherwise, you will only acquire an undivided share and may be subject to a partition suit by other co‑heirs.

For a court deciding a suit for partition of a male intestate’s property after 1956: Apply Sections 8, 10 and 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Compute the shares per capita among Class I heirs. Hold that the heirs take as tenants‑in‑common. Do not apply the doctrine of survivorship. If any heir claims to be karta or claims to have alienated the property for legal necessity, reject such claim because there is no coparcenary or joint family property in respect of the inherited property.

11. Court Lines

Line 1 (Joint tenancy unknown to Hindu law – Para 7, quoting Jogeswar Narain Deo):
"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."

Line 2 (Distinction between tenancy‑in‑common and joint tenancy – Para 7, quoting Azizun Nisa):
"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."

Line 3 (Devolution under Section 8 is individual property – Para 14, quoting Chander Sen):
"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."

Line 4 (Tenancy‑in‑common under Section 19 – Para 17, quoting M. Arifulla):
"Section 19… 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."

Line 5 (No karta in tenancy‑in‑common – Para 8):
"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."

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For a plaintiff (co‑heir) seeking partition of property inherited after 1956: File a suit for partition and separate possession. Specifically plead that the property devolved under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and that you and the other co‑heirs are tenants‑in‑common with definite shares as per Section 10 and Section 19. If another co‑heir claims to have sold or mortgaged the entire property for “legal necessity”, argue that there is no joint family property or coparcenary, and therefore no karta has the power to bind other co‑heirs. The sale is void beyond the seller’s own share. Cite Chander Sen, Yudhishter, and M. Arifulla.

For a defendant (co‑heir who sold property claiming legal necessity): You will face an uphill battle after this judgment. The only possible defence is to prove that the property, though inherited under Section 8, was subsequently blended with other coparcenary property to form a Hindu Undivided Family, and that you were the karta. This requires clear evidence of a joint family business or common pool of assets and an intention to treat the inherited property as joint family property. In the absence of such evidence, the sale is invalid beyond your own share.

For a buyer of property from a single heir of an intestate: Before purchasing, obtain a decree of partition that specifically allots the property to the seller. Alternatively, obtain a release deed or no‑objection from all other co‑heirs. If you purchase only the seller’s undivided share, you will become a tenant‑in‑common with the other co‑heirs. You will have the right to file a suit for partition and separate possession, but you cannot evict the other co‑heirs or take exclusive possession. The seller’s claim of “legal necessity” or “karta” is irrelevant after this judgment.

For a lawyer advising a family after the death of a male Hindu: Advise all heirs that the property devolves in definite shares under Sections 8 and 10. Encourage a family settlement or a registered partition deed to avoid future disputes. Warn against any single heir trying to sell the entire property without the consent of all co‑heirs. If a sale is necessary for a genuine purpose (e.g., paying debts of the deceased, medical expenses), obtain the consent of all co‑heirs in writing or seek a court order under the Guardians and Wards Act if a minor is involved.

For a court trying a suit for partition of an intestate’s property: First determine whether the deceased died after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. If yes, apply Sections 8, 10 and 19. Do not apply the Mitakshara coparcenary rules. Compute the shares per capita among Class I heirs. Hold that the heirs are tenants‑in‑common. If any alienation by a co‑heir is challenged, declare that it is valid only to the extent of the alienor’s share. The defence of “legal necessity” or “karta” is not available. If the property was originally separate property of the deceased, it does not become coparcenary merely because it passed to a son.