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

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-in-common with definite and separate shares, and the property devolves by succession rather than by survivorship.

8. 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.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8358 of 2026 

Decided On: 01.06.2026

Darubai and Ors. Vs. Kamalabai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0605/2026

Print Page

Whether father can execute will in respect of ancestral property which he received in partition?

 It is clearly emerging factual and legal position in the matter that there had been partition among father and three sons in 1978 whereunder each of them received one fourth share in the inherited coparcenary property and that in 1990, the father under a registered will, had bequeathed his one fourth separate share received in partition, to only two sons. The third son though being alive, had not received anything under the bequest. Father of the plaintiff died in 1991. Thereafter, the properties bequeathed were being enjoyed by the two sons as their independent properties. That enjoyment had never been questioned by the third son. The Maharashtra amendment to Hindu Succession Act had been effective since 1994 and amendment to section 6 to Hindu Succession Act had been made effective from 2005. Disposition of the property by the father of the plaintiff, as such, obviously has been before 20th day of December, 2004. On partition, the property had become separate property of father and as such, he had an absolute right to deal with the same and which he did by executing a registered will, which appears to have been acted upon. Coparcenary nature of the property had ceased to continue upon partition of the properties among the partitioning members of the coparcenary, since 1978. It is not the case that any male member had been born after 1978 to deceased father in order to lay claim to any share in the property. Father admittedly had executed will of his partitioned separate share in 1990 and in 1991, he has expired. Disposition of suit property among coparceners then had taken place before Maharashtra Amendment of 1994 to Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Even if it is assumed that amendment to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, is retroactive, the legislature has already made its intention clear that disposition of properties made before 20th December, 2004 would remain unaffected.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 440 of 2015

Decided On: 22.03.2017

 Leelavati Baburao Chaudhari Vs. Pitambar Shridhar Attarde and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.P. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 469

Print Page