Heirs succeeding under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act take as tenants-in-common, not as joint tenants.

The dispute involves a step-mother (Appellant/Defendant) and four daughters (Respondents/Plaintiffs) over the separate property of the late Dajiba, who died intestate.

The properties include land and two houses in village Sapti.

The Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession claiming 4/5th share as successors-in-interest.

The Defendant resisted, claiming she sold part of the property as ‘karta’ of the family to meet the "legal necessity" of a daughter's marriage.

The Civil Court decreed the suit; the First Appellate Court partially reversed it by accepting the "legal necessity" argument; however, the High Court restored the Civil Court's decree in Second Appeal.

1. Whether the Defendant could avail the ground of "legal necessity" as a karta of the family to alienate property inherited under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

2. Whether heirs succeeding to property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, hold the property as tenants-in-common or joint tenants.

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act (HSA), which governs the general rules of succession for male Hindus dying intestate.

Section 19 of the HSA, which mandates that two or more heirs succeeding together take property as "tenants-in-common" and not as "joint tenants".

The doctrine from CWT v. Chander Sen, which established that property inherited under Section 8 is the individual property of the heir and not HUF property.

The principle in M. Arumugam v. Ammaniammal affirming that such inheritance is individual and statutory, precluding the birthright of descendants under Mitakshara coparcenary.

The Court analyzed the distinction between joint tenancy (governed by survivorship) and tenancy-in-common (notional separate ownership).

It observed that under Section 19(b) of the HSA, statutory succession creates a tenancy-in-common.

The Court reasoned that since the property devolved under Section 8, it lost its character as coparcenary property; hence, the concepts of karta and "legal necessity"—which are central to managing joint family/coparcenary property—were inapplicable.

The Defendant only had the right to alienate her specific 1/5th share and lacked the legal authority to bind the other heirs' shares under the guise of family management.

The Defendant could not act as a karta to sell the property for "legal necessity" as the property was not a joint family asset.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s judgment which restored the partition decree in favor of the daughters.

No order as to costs was made.