No Karta Among Heirs Under Section 8: Supreme Court Says Widow Could Not Sell Step-Daughters’ Shares

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has held that when property devolves on heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, they take it as tenants-in-common with definite shares, not as a joint family. So a widow who inherited along with her four step-daughters could not act as “karta” and sell part of the property on the ground of legal necessity; she could deal only with her own share.

After Dajiba's death, his four daughters sued their step-mother Darubai in 1972 for partition and separate possession of agricultural land and houses at village Sapti, claiming a 4/5th share. Darubai pleaded that, as karta, she had agreed to sell part of the property to one Dattatraya out of legal necessity for a daughter's marriage.

The Civil Court decreed the suit on 20 October 1995 and rejected the sale defence. The District Judge, Nanded reversed that finding in 1999, holding legal necessity proved. In second appeal, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) on 31 March 2022 restored the Civil Court's judgment, and the matter reached the Supreme Court.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can one of several heirs who inherit under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act act as karta and sell the property for legal necessity?

Succession, Not Survivorship

The Court explained the difference between joint tenancy, where survivorship applies, and tenancy-in-common, where each co-owner has a distinct share that passes to that person's own heirs. Relying on CWT v. Chander Sen, (1986) 07 SC CK 0021 and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, (1986) 12 SC CK 0051, it noted that property inherited under Section 8 is held in the heir's individual capacity and does not become coparcenary property: “Survivorship has no place in this form of devolution.”

Following M. Arumugam v. Ammaniammal, the Court held that heirs under Section 8 take as tenants-in-common. On Dajiba's death, “Darubai and her four step daughters became tenants-in-common with definite and separate shares” of 1/5th each, so the question of karta-ship did not arise and she could not sell the others' shares for legal necessity.

What the Court Actually Held

• Heirs who inherit under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act take as tenants-in-common, not joint tenants.
• Such property is not joint family property, and no heir can act as karta over it.
• The widow could deal only with her own 1/5th share, not sell her step-daughters' shares for legal necessity.
• The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, leaving the High Court's restoration of the partition decree in place.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It is a clear restatement of how inherited property is held after the 1956 Act.
• It protects daughters' shares against sales by a family elder claiming karta status.
• It is relevant to partition suits and challenges to sales by one co-heir.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Co-Heirs

• Challenge a sale by another heir to the extent it affects your share.
• Plead that property inherited under Section 8 is held as tenants-in-common.

For Purchasers

• Check whether the seller inherited under Section 8 and holds only a defined share.
• A legal necessity plea does not help where the seller is not a karta.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Not the step-daughters' shares. The Court held she could deal only with her own 1/5th share.

Not when it devolves under Section 8; the heir takes it individually.

Chander Sen, Yudhishter and M. Arumugam v. Ammaniammal.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →