Hindu Succession Act | After Intestate Succession, One Co-Heir Cannot Alienate Shares Of Others Acting As Karta : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (June 1) held that heirs inheriting intestate property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 hold it as tenants-in-common with definite shares, and not as a joint family property. Consequently, no co-heir can alienate the property on behalf of others, as the concept of a Karta does not apply in such cases.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the case where, upon the Hindu male dying intestate, his second wife, as well as his four daughters from his first wife, were entitled to inherit his property in equal proportion, i.e., 1/5th share in the property in terms of the Hindu Succession Act.

The dispute arose from a partition suit instituted in 1972 by four daughters of late Dajiba against their stepmother(Darubai, second wife of Dajiba and appellant in SC). The daughters claimed 4/5th share in the suit properties, comprising agricultural lands and houses in Maharashtra, asserting that they and the widow were Class I heirs of Dajiba. The trial court decreed the suit in their favour. While the first appellate court partly accepted the widow's defence regarding a sale executed in favour of a third party on grounds of legal necessity, the Bombay High Court restored the trial court's decree.

Before the Supreme Court, the principal issue was whether the widow could invoke the doctrine of legal necessity as karta and whether the heirs inherited the property as joint tenants or tenants-in-common.

Setting aside the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Karol emphasized that the parties to the lis do not hold the property as joint tenants, a form of ownership characterized by a single unified interest without distinct individual shares, but tenants-in-common where each heir has their separate and distinct share, eligible for further devolution amongst their heirs. This means upon the death of one co-owner, his share devolves upon his own heirs according to the law of succession.

“To illustrate, suppose 'A' dies intestate leaving behind 'B' and 'C' as his heirs, under Section 8 read with Section 19 of the HSA, 'B' and 'C' inherit the property as tenants-in-common. Each acquires a definite share. If 'B' later dies, 'B's share will devolve upon 'B's own legal heirs and will not automatically pass to 'C'. The difference in the two systems determines the nature of property inherited by a son from his father.”, the court explained the concept of tenants-in-common.

On the contrary, holding the concept of joint tenants being inapplicable to the intestate inheritance under Hindu Succession Law, the Court explained that “in a joint tenancy, all co-owners together constitute ownership. It is governed by the rule of survivorship. When one joint tenant dies, his interest automatically accrues to the surviving co-owners, and not on his own progeny. What this means is that while the joint tenancy subsists, none of the co-owners have a separate inheritable share. For instance, suppose 'A' and 'B' jointly hold a property under the Mitakshara system,if 'A' dies, 'B' automatically absorbs 'A's interest by survivorship. There is no question of it devolving upon 'A's widow or children. Ownership, therefore, continues in the surviving coparcener without any separate succession taking place.”

The Court observed that for intestate succession under Section 8, the concept or Kartaship won't apply.

“…property inherited under Section 8 does not automatically assume the character of coparcenary property. It was held that descendants of the heir do not acquire rights in such property by birth because the inheritance is individual and statutory in nature…Accordingly, in the context of Section 8, the question of karta-ship ordinarily does not arise merely because the property has come from a paternal ancestor. The heirs succeed as tenants-incommon with definite and separate shares, and the property devolves by succession rather than by survivorship.”, the court observed.

Therefore, the alienation of the part of the property by the Respondent in exercise of her power as a Karta on account of a legal necessity for her sister's marriage was held to be invalid, as “she only had the right to do whatever she wished with the 1/5th share of the property that vested with her.” [Refer M Arumugam vs Ammaniammal and others, (2020) 11 SCC 103]

“In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, it has been held that upon the death of Dajiba, Darubai and her four step daughters became tenants-in-common with definite and separate shares, to the tune of 1/5th each. When each of them have separate and identifiable shares, in the considered view of this Court, there arises no question of the defendant acting as karta to sell off a part of the property on account of legal necessity, be it for whatever reason, for she only had the right to do whatever she wished with the 1/5th share of the property that vested with her.”, the court held.

The Bench held that since each heir had a distinct and identifiable share, the widow could not act as karta to alienate a portion of the entire property on grounds of legal necessity. At best, she could deal only with her own one-fifth share.

"When each of them have separate and identifiable shares, in the considered view of this Court, there arises no question of the defendant acting as karta to sell off a part of the property on account of legal necessity," the judgment stated.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court expressed hope that the dispute, which had continued for more than five decades, would finally come to an end and enable the parties to "move on to a better, more peaceful tomorrow."

Cause Title: DARUBAI & ANR. VERSUS KAMALABAI & ORS.

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Vivek C. Solshe, Adv. Mr. Varun V. Solshe, Adv. Mr. Pradeep K. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Ii, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv. Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv.