Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors., 2026

Dajiba died intestate (without leaving a will).

He was survived by:

• His second wife, Darubai.

• Four daughters from his first wife.

Under the Hindu Succession Act, all five heirs became entitled to equal shares in his property.

The suit properties consisted of agricultural lands and residential houses situated in Maharashtra.

In 1972, the four daughters filed a partition suit claiming 4/5th share in the properties.

They contended that each heir was entitled to a separate and definite share under the Hindu Succession Act.

Darubai defended the suit and relied upon a sale transaction executed by her in favour of a third party.

She claimed that the sale was justified on the ground of legal necessity, namely expenses for her sister's marriage.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the daughters.

The First Appellate Court partly accepted Darubai's defence regarding the sale.

The Bombay High Court restored the Trial Court's decree.

Aggrieved, Darubai approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

The Court held that property inherited under Section 8 read with Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act devolves upon heirs as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants.

The Bench clarified that each heir receives a separate, identifiable, and definite share in the inherited property.

The Court observed that property inherited through intestate succession does not automatically become coparcenary property.

It reiterated that descendants of an heir do not acquire rights in such property by birth.

The Bench explained that the doctrine of survivorship is inapplicable to succession governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.

The Court held that because the heirs possessed distinct shares, the concept of Karta-ship had no application.

Darubai could not act as Karta to sell any portion of the entire property on behalf of other co-heirs.

At best, she could deal only with her own 1/5th share.

Consequently, the alienation made by her on grounds of legal necessity was held invalid insofar as it affected the shares of other heirs.

The Court drew a clear distinction between joint tenancy and tenancy-in-common, concepts that are often confused in succession disputes.

By emphasizing tenancy-in-common, the Court reinforced the principle that every heir acquires an independent proprietary interest immediately upon succession.

The ruling prevents one heir from exercising dominance over the shares of other heirs under the guise of Karta-ship.

The decision strengthens the proprietary rights of daughters and widows by ensuring that their shares remain individually protected.

The Court reaffirmed that succession under Section 8 is statutory in nature and not governed by traditional notions of survivorship.

The judgment aligns with modern succession jurisprudence that recognizes equal and independent inheritance rights among Class-I heirs.

It limits misuse of the doctrine of legal necessity in cases where no joint family or coparcenary property exists.

The ruling serves as an important precedent in partition and inheritance disputes involving intestate succession.

Each co-owner has a definite and separate share.

The share of a deceased co-owner passes to his/her own legal heirs.

Ownership rights are independent and identifiable.

Applicable to succession under Section 8 HSA.

Co-owners hold a single unified interest.

Governed by the rule of survivorship.

Upon death of one co-owner, the interest automatically passes to surviving co-owners.

No separate inheritable share exists during the subsistence of joint tenancy.