Can a Karta Sell Inherited Property? Supreme Court Clarifies Co-Heirs' Rights Under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act

When several family members inherit property after the death of a Hindu male, disputes often follow over who actually has the authority to manage, sell, or mortgage that property.

One particularly tricky scenario: a family member claims to be the Karta and tries to sell part of the inherited property, citing legal necessity.

But does being a senior family member — or even calling yourself the Karta — actually give you the authority to deal with shares that legally belong to other heirs?

The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors., decided on 1 June 2026. The Court held that where the separate property of a Hindu male devolves upon his heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, those heirs succeed with definite and separate shares as tenants-in-common. In that setting, Karta-ship does not ordinarily arise merely because the property came from a paternal ancestor.

This matters for anyone dealing with inherited property, especially where family members disagree about who has the authority to sell or otherwise deal with jointly inherited assets.

The Supreme Court's 2026 Decision: Darubai v. Kamalabai

Case at a Glance

• Case: Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors.
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Date of judgment: 1 June 2026
• Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 613
• Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
• Key provisions: Sections 8, 10 and 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
• Central issue: Whether a co-heir could invoke Karta status and legal necessity to deal with property inherited by several heirs under Section 8.

The dispute arose between a widow and the daughters of her deceased husband over inherited property. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the widow could deal with her own share but could not act as Karta to sell the shares belonging to the other heirs.

What Happened in Darubai v. Kamalabai?

The dispute concerned the separate property of a man named Dajiba, who died intestate.

After his death, his widow, Darubai, and his four daughters succeeded to the property — agricultural land and houses in village Sapti, Maharashtra.

The daughters filed a suit for partition and separate possession, claiming that together they were entitled to four-fifths of the property.

The dispute crystallized when Darubai agreed to sell part of the property to a person named Dattatraya. Her position was that she had acted as Karta of the family and that the sale was justified by legal necessity, including expenses connected with one daughter's marriage.

The Civil Court rejected this argument. The First Appellate Court took the opposite view and accepted the legal-necessity claim. The High Court then restored the Civil Court's original decree.

The matter reached the Supreme Court, which examined whether Darubai could rely on Karta status and legal necessity to justify the sale, and whether the heirs succeeded as tenants-in-common or joint tenants under the Hindu Succession Act.

What Does Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act Provide?

Section 8 lays down the general rules of succession when a male Hindu dies intestate.

Broadly, where a male Hindu dies without a valid will, his property devolves according to a statutory order of succession, with Class I heirs given priority.

The key point here is that this inheritance follows the statutory scheme. It does not automatically create a new joint family or coparcenary arrangement among the heirs.

The Supreme Court examined Section 8 specifically in the context of the deceased's separate property and the rights his heirs acquired as a result.

Why Section 19 Matters: Tenants-in-Common vs. Joint Tenants

Section 19 provides that when two or more heirs succeed together to an intestate's property, they take it:

• per capita, unless the Act says otherwise; and
• as tenants-in-common, not as joint tenants.

This distinction sits at the heart of the Supreme Court's reasoning.

What Is Tenancy-in-Common?

Under a tenancy-in-common, each co-owner holds a distinct, identifiable undivided share in the property.

The property itself may stay physically undivided — several heirs might jointly hold one house or one parcel of land without ever splitting it into separate portions. Their legal shares, though, remain separately defined and ascertained. That is exactly the position Section 19 creates for heirs succeeding together under Section 8: their interests arise through statutory succession, and Section 19 classifies that interest as a tenancy-in-common rather than a joint tenancy.

If one co-owner later dies, that person's share does not pass automatically to the surviving co-owners by survivorship. Instead, it devolves according to the applicable succession law.

How Is Joint Tenancy Different?

Joint tenancy operates on a different principle, particularly survivorship. The co-owners' interests are held jointly rather than as separately defined shares, and the interest of a deceased joint tenant can pass to the surviving joint tenants rather than devolving separately.

The Difference in Simple Terms

Does Property Inherited Under Section 8 Become Ancestral or Coparcenary Property?

This is one of the most important — and most misunderstood — points in the judgment.

People often assume that if property originally belonged to a father, grandfather, or another paternal ancestor, it automatically turns into ancestral or coparcenary property in the hands of the next generation.

The Supreme Court made clear that this assumption does not hold where the property devolves under Section 8.

Drawing on earlier decisions including CWT v. Chander Sen and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, the Court reiterated that property inherited under Section 8 is taken by the heir in their individual capacity. It does not automatically acquire coparcenary character just because it once belonged to a paternal ancestor.

The Court also referred to M. Arumugam v. Ammaniammal, which reinforced that heirs succeeding under Section 8 hold as tenants-in-common rather than as joint family property, even if they continue holding the property jointly before any partition or family settlement.

A Simple Example

Suppose A, a Hindu male, dies intestate, leaving separate property behind. That property devolves under Section 8 upon his legal heirs.

If B inherits a share from A, B does not automatically become the Karta of a new Hindu joint family simply by virtue of having children.

The fact that the property once belonged to A does not, on its own, give B's children a birthright in that property because B received it through statutory succession under Section 8, rather than through the joint-family route.

This is the principle the Supreme Court reaffirmed by relying on Chander Sen and Yudhishter.

Can a Co-Heir Act as Karta of Property Inherited Under Section 8?

This was the central issue in Darubai.

The general rule

Where property passes under Section 8, Karta-ship does not ordinarily arise merely because the property came from a paternal ancestor.

That is because the heirs inherit through statutory succession and hold the property as tenants-in-common with definite and separate shares — not as members of a joint family with a manager at its head.

Applied to the facts

Darubai and the four daughters each acquired a 1/5 share in the property.

On that basis, the Supreme Court held that Darubai could not rely on a claimed Karta position to sell part of the property on the ground of legal necessity.

She could deal with the 1/5 share that belonged to her — but that gave her no authority over the shares belonging to the other four co-heirs.

What Did the Supreme Court Actually Hold?

Four connected principles emerge from the judgment:

1. Section 8 governed the succession on these facts.
The dispute concerned the separate property of a male Hindu who died intestate.

2. The heirs took as tenants-in-common.
Under Section 19, they succeeded with definite and separate shares rather than as joint tenants.

3. Section 8 inheritance does not automatically create coparcenary property.
The property does not become joint family property simply because it originated with a paternal ancestor.

4. Karta status cannot be used to alienate the other heirs' shares.
Since each heir holds a separately identifiable share, one heir cannot invoke Karta status and legal necessity to deal with shares belonging to the others.

Putting it together: the Supreme Court held that Darubai had the right to deal with her own 1/5 share, but not to act as Karta and sell property belonging to the other co-heirs.

Important context: This holding should be read against the facts before the Court. The nature of the original property, the mode of succession, and any subsequent legal or contractual arrangements may affect the rights of the parties in other cases.

What Does "Legal Necessity" Mean in This Context?

Legal necessity has long had a recognized place in Hindu law, particularly in relation to certain transactions involving joint family property and the powers of a Karta.

But the existence of that concept does not automatically give every co-owner or heir the power to sell property belonging to other co-owners.

That distinction turned out to be decisive in Darubai.

The Court did not stop at asking whether there was a family-related reason for the proposed sale. It first examined the nature of the ownership itself.

Because the property had devolved under Section 8 and the heirs held definite shares as tenants-in-common, the Court concluded that Darubai could not rely on Karta status and legal necessity to deal with the other heirs' shares.

What Does This Mean for Other Co-Heirs?

The judgment offers a useful reality check for families dealing with inherited property.

If several heirs inherit separate property under the statutory scheme considered in Darubai, one heir does not become manager of the entire property simply because:

• they are the eldest family member;
• they live near the property;
• other heirs live elsewhere;
• they have been managing the property day-to-day;
• they describe themselves as the Karta; or
• they say the transaction was necessary for a family purpose.

The actual legal position turns on the nature of the property, the mode of succession, and the documents involved.

The core takeaway from Darubai is simple: one co-heir's authority over their own share should not be confused with authority over the shares belonging to everyone else.

What Does This Mean for NRIs Who Inherit Property in India?

This decision may also be relevant to NRIs and other co-heirs living away from the property.

Picture several heirs inheriting a house or land in India, with one heir remaining in India while the others live abroad.

The resident heir might look after the property, pay taxes, deal with local authorities, or handle routine matters. None of that, by itself, establishes authority over the other heirs' ownership interests.

If a dispute arises, the relevant questions typically include:

• How did the deceased own the property?
• Was it separate property or joint family property?
• Did the deceased leave a valid will?
• Which heirs succeeded, and under which provision?
• What shares did each heir receive?
• Was there a registered partition or family settlement?
• Did any heir execute a power of attorney?
• What exactly does the proposed or completed transaction cover?

These answers can materially change the legal position.

What Can a Co-Heir Do If Another Heir Attempts to Sell the Property?

A co-heir who learns that another heir is trying to deal with jointly inherited property should start by establishing the property's title and the respective ownership shares.

Depending on the circumstances, useful steps include:

1. Collect the title documents and succession records.
2. Verify the deceased owner's title and the nature of the property.
3. Obtain copies of any agreement, sale deed, power of attorney, or other relevant document.
4. Check applicable revenue and mutation records.
5. Identify the legal shares of all heirs.
6. Seek legal advice before signing or consenting to any settlement.
7. Where appropriate, pursue partition, separate possession, declaration, or injunctive relief through the competent court.

The appropriate remedy depends on the facts. A transaction involving inherited property should therefore be examined on its actual documents — not assumed to be valid or invalid simply because one party calls themselves the Karta.

Is Inherited Property Always "Ancestral Property"?

No — not automatically.

The terms "inherited property," "ancestral property," "joint family property," "coparcenary property," and "separate property" are often used interchangeably in everyday conversation, but they can have different legal consequences.

The Supreme Court's discussion in Darubai — particularly its reliance on Chander Sen and Yudhishter — reinforces that property devolving under Section 8 does not automatically become coparcenary property simply because it originated with a paternal ancestor.

Before deciding whether a family member can sell, manage, or otherwise deal with inherited property, it is therefore important to establish how the property was owned and how it devolved.

Why the Darubai Judgment Matters

The significance of Darubai v. Kamalabai lies in the line it draws between statutory inheritance and joint family management.

The Supreme Court did not treat the property's origin as sufficient, on its own, to create Karta powers. Instead, it worked through three questions in sequence:

How did the heirs acquire the property?
Through statutory succession under Section 8.

How did they hold it?
As tenants-in-common, with definite and separate shares under Section 19.

Could one heir therefore invoke Karta status to deal with the others' shares?
No. The co-heir could deal with her own share, but Karta status and legal necessity could not be used to sell the shares of the other heirs.

That sequence — origin, mode of holding, and only then the question of authority — is what makes this judgment useful beyond its own facts, particularly in partition disputes and other inherited-property cases.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a Karta sell property inherited under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act?

Where heirs succeed to separate property under Section 8 and hold it as tenants-in-common with definite shares, Karta status does not ordinarily arise merely because the property came from a paternal ancestor. In Darubai, the Supreme Court held that one co-heir could not use Karta status and legal necessity to sell shares belonging to the other heirs.

Can one legal heir sell the entire inherited property without the consent of the other heirs?

A co-heir's authority over inherited property is generally limited by the nature and extent of that heir's legal interest, unless another source of authority exists. In Darubai, the Supreme Court held that Darubai could deal with her own 1/5 share but could not act as Karta to deal with the shares of the other co-heirs.

What is the difference between tenants-in-common and joint tenants?

Tenants-in-common hold distinct undivided shares that can devolve separately upon death. Joint tenancy involves survivorship. Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act provides that two or more heirs succeeding together take as tenants-in-common rather than joint tenants, subject to the Act's provisions.

Does property inherited under Section 8 become ancestral property?

Not automatically. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that property devolving under Section 8 is inherited in the heir's individual capacity and does not automatically become coparcenary property merely because it originally belonged to a paternal ancestor.

Can a widow act as Karta of property inherited with her step-children?

The answer depends on the property's nature and legal status. In Darubai, the widow and four daughters inherited the deceased's separate property under Section 8 and became tenants-in-common with 1/5 shares each. The Supreme Court held that the widow could not act as Karta to sell the daughters' shares on the ground of legal necessity.

What did the Supreme Court decide in Darubai v. Kamalabai?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the widow and four daughters succeeded as tenants-in-common with definite and separate 1/5 shares. The widow could deal with her own share but could not invoke Karta status and legal necessity to sell shares belonging to the other heirs.

Can a co-heir seek partition of inherited property?

Where multiple heirs hold property as co-owners, partition and separate possession proceedings may be available depending on the facts and applicable law. In Darubai, the daughters sought partition and separate possession of their shares, and the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the position in their favour.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors., 2026 INSC 613, clarifies the relationship between Section 8 succession, tenancy-in-common, and Karta powers.

Where separate property of a male Hindu devolves upon heirs under Section 8, the heirs succeed according to the statutory scheme and, where Section 19 applies, hold the property as tenants-in-common with definite and separate shares.

That property does not automatically become coparcenary property simply because it came from a paternal ancestor. Likewise, one co-heir cannot assume Karta status and invoke legal necessity to deal with shares belonging to the others.

The practical lesson is straightforward: before treating inherited property as joint family property, or letting one family member manage or sell it on everyone's behalf, look carefully at how the property was originally owned, how it devolved, and what each heir's individual share actually is.

For NRIs and other co-heirs managing property from a distance, keeping clear title records, succession documents, and appropriate legal documentation on hand can help reduce the risk of ownership and authority disputes.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is intended for general legal information and educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for legal advice on a specific property, succession, or partition dispute. The legal position may vary depending on the facts, title documents, succession history, applicable law, and the nature of the property. Readers should consult a qualified lawyer before taking action in a specific matter.