The Supreme Court has held that where the separate property of a male Hindu devolves intestate under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 upon Class I heirs, those heirs inherit the property as tenants-in-common with definite and separate shares, and not as joint tenants or as members of a coparcenary by survivorship. Consequently, one such heir cannot claim the status of karta in respect of the entire inherited property so as to alienate any part of it on the ground of legal necessity for the family.

Applying this principle, the Supreme Court held that after Dajiba’s death, Darubai and the four daughters each became entitled to 1/5th share only, and Darubai could deal only with the 1/5th share vested in her, not with the shares of the other heirs.

A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih examined Sections 8, 10 and 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and reiterated that where two or more heirs succeed to the property of an intestate, they take per capita and as tenants-in-common, and not as joint tenants. The Bench explained that joint tenancy is governed by survivorship and is generally foreign to Hindu succession except in the case of coparcenary in an undivided family, whereas tenancy-in-common gives each co-owner a distinct, undivided but identifiable share, which on death devolves on that co-owner’s own heirs and not by survivorship.

Further, the Bench affirmed that property devolving under Section 8 is inherited in the individual capacity of the heir and does not automatically assume the character of joint family or coparcenary property. On that reasoning, the Bench observed that in succession under Section 8, the question of karta-ship ordinarily does not arise merely because the property came from a paternal ancestor, since the heirs hold definite and separate shares as tenants-in-common.

Briefly, the dispute arose from a suit for partition and separate possession filed by four daughters of late Dajiba, including the present respondent, claiming that they together were entitled to 4/5th share in Dajiba’s separate property, with the remaining 1/5th belonging to Darubai, his widow and the appellant. The property comprised certain agricultural lands and two houses situated in village Sapti. The Trial Court decreed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court partly reversed that decree by accepting Darubai’s case that, acting as karta, she had agreed to sell part of the property out of legal necessity for the marriage of one of the plaintiffs.

In second appeal, the High Court restored the trial court’s decree, and Darubai challenged that restoration before the Supreme Court. Two aspects were undisputed before the Court: first, the relationship between the parties, namely a step-mother and daughters; and second, that the suit property was the separate property of Dajiba. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether, after Dajiba’s death, the heirs took the property as tenants-in-common or as joint tenants under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and whether Darubai could invoke karta-ship and legal necessity to alienate part of the property.

Appearances:

For Appellants: Ashok Kumar Gupta Ii, AOR.

For Respondents: Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR, Nishant Sharma, Adv., Ankur Savadikar, Adv., Kartik Sharma, Adv.