Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors. 2026 INSC 613

The dispute is between a step-mother (the original defendant and appellant, Darubai) and her four step-daughters (the plaintiffs, including the respondent Kamalabai).

The property consists of several parcels of land and two tiled houses located in village Sapti, which were the separate property of the late Dajiba. Dajiba died intestate, leaving behind his wife (Darubai) and four daughters. The daughters filed a suit for partition and separate possession, claiming to be 4/5th owners of the property as his successors-in-interest.

The defendant (Darubai) contended that she had agreed to sell part of the property as the “karta” of the family to one Dattatraya, claiming “legal necessity” to fund the marriage of one of the plaintiffs.

The Civil Court initially decreed the suit in favor of the daughters, rejecting the legal necessity argument. The First Appellate Court reversed this, upholding the defendant’s right to manage the property as karta. However, the High Court overturned the First Appellate Court’s decision and restored the Civil Court’s decree in a Second Appeal.

Statutory Framework: The Court examined Section 8 of the HSA, which dictates that the property of a male dying intestate devolves first upon Class I heirs (widow and children). Section 19(b) of the Act explicitly states that when two or more heirs succeed together, they take the property as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants.

Joint Tenancy v. Tenancy-in-Common: The Court clarified that in a “joint tenancy,” ownership is governed by survivorship; when one owner dies, their interest passes to the survivors, not their own heirs. In contrast, in a “tenancy-in-common,” each owner has a distinct, identifiable, and undivided share that devolves upon their own legal heirs according to succession law.

The Karta Concept: The Court held that property inherited under Section 8 is taken by an individual in their private capacity, not as a “karta” of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Therefore, the concept of a “karta” managing the property for others does not apply to such inheritance.

Application to the Parties: Upon Dajiba’s death, Darubai and the four daughters became tenants-in-common, each holding a definite 1/5th share. Because their shares were separate and identifiable from the moment of succession, Darubai had no authority to act as a “karta” to sell any portion of the property beyond her own 1/5th share.