Property Inherited Under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act Is Held as Tenants-in-Common, Not Joint Family Property: Supreme Court

Case Name: Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 613

Date of Judgment/Order: 01 June 2026

Bench: Sanjay Karol, J. and Augustine George Masih, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that when the separate property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves under Section 8 read with Sections 10 and 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the heirs succeed as tenants-in-common with definite and separate shares, and not as joint tenants or members of a coparcenary. Consequently, such inherited property does not become joint family property merely because it originated from a paternal ancestor, and no heir can claim to act as karta for the entire property or alienate the shares of other heirs on the ground of legal necessity.

Summary: The dispute arose out of a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the daughters of late Dajiba against their step-mother, Darubai, in respect of Dajiba’s separate property. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court partly interfered with the decree by accepting Darubai’s plea that she had sold part of the property as karta for legal necessity, namely, for the marriage of one of the plaintiffs. The High Court restored the Trial Court’s decree. Before the Supreme Court, the issue was whether Darubai could claim the status of karta and justify alienation of the property on legal necessity, and whether the heirs inherited as joint tenants or tenants-in-common. Referring to Sections 8, 10 and 19 of the Hindu Succession Act and precedents including CWT v. Chander Sen, Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, and M. Arumugam v. Ammaniammal, the Court held that succession under Section 8 is statutory and individual in character, and that each Class I heir receives a definite share as tenant-in-common.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed that Darubai and the four daughters of Dajiba each inherited a separate 1/5th share in the suit property as tenants-in-common. Since Darubai had only a 1/5th share, she could not have acted as karta to sell any part of the property affecting the shares of the other heirs on the ground of legal necessity. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs, and all pending applications were disposed of.