Darubai & Anr. vs Kamalabai & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

1 June 2026

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 8358 of 2026

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih

Citation

[2026] 7 S.C.R. 1 : 2026 INSC 613

Acts & Sections

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendant could avail the ground of legal necessity as ‘karta’ of the family, and whether the parties to the lis, would succeed to the suit properties as tenants in common or joint tenants, since their rights flow from s.8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Headnote

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.8 – The four plaintiffs including the present respondent had filed suit for partition and separate possession claiming to be 4/5th owners of the property of late Da, being the successors-in-interest as his daughters along with Di, who is the wife of Da – In other words, this dispute which has been ongoing for more than half-a century is a dispute between a step-mother and daughters – The Civil Court decreed the suit holding the plaintiffs to be entitled to their ask – The defendant’s reasoning that she had agreed to sell a part of the suit property, as ‘karta’ to one Dat, out of legal necessity for the marriage of one of the plaintiffs, was rejected – The First Appellate Court, reversed the findings and held the legal necessity ground to be established along with the defendant’s right to manage the property and so, the judgment of the Civil Court was interfered with inasmuch as the sale to Dat is concerned, only – In the Second Appeal filed by plaintiff no.4, the judgment of the Civil Court came to be restored – Correctness:

Held: In the context of s.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 – Upon the death of Da, Di 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. [Paras 7, 8]

Tenancy – Joint tenancy and Tenancy in common – Discussed. [Para 7]

Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. Leave Granted. 2. The original-defendant is the appellant herein and challenges the final judgment and order dated 31st March 20221 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, which overturned the judgment in First Appeal2 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Nanded, dated 9th March 1999 which was in turn directed against the judgment in the suit for partition and separate possession3 in which the present respondent was the fourth plaintiff. The suit was decreed in terms of judgment dated 20th October 1995. 3. The four plaintiffs i

View Subscription Plans →