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 on the death of Muslim his legal heirs will inherit his property as joint tenant or tenants in common?

 The cause of action for partition of properties is said to be a perpetually recurring one" See Monsharam Chak-ravarty & Ors. v. Gonesh Chandra Chakravarty & Ors. (2). In Mohammedan Law the doctrine of partial partition is not applicable because the heirs are tenants-in-common and the heirs of the deceased Muslim succeed to the definite fraction of every part of his estate. The share,,, of heirs under Mohamedan Law are definite and known before actual partition. Therefore on partition of properties belonging to a deceased Muslim there is division by metes and bounds in accordance with the specific share of each heir being already determined by the law.

Supreme Court of India

Syed Shah Ghulam Ghouse Mohiuddin ... vs Syed Shah Ahmed Moriuddin Kamisul ... on 17 February, 1971

Print Page

Supreme Court: Legal heirs of deceased tenant inherit tenancy as joint tenants

We are of the view that in the light of H.C. Pandey (supra), the situation is very clear that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenant is occupation of all the joint tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the property or not. It is sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying the property, as party. There may be a case where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of deceased tenant and impleading only those heirs who are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition against one of the joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. Thus, the plea of the tenants on this count must fail.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3996 of 2018 

Decided On: 19.04.2018

 Suresh Kumar Kohli   Vs.  Rakesh Jain and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

 Citation: 2018 (6) SCC 708,MANU/SC/0432/2018

Print Page

Whether it is necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of deceased tenant?

 We are of the view that in the light of H.C. Pandey (supra), the situation is very clear that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenant is occupation of all the joint tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the property or not. It is sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying the property, as party. There may be a case where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of deceased tenant and impleading only those heirs who are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition against one of the joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. Thus, the plea of the tenants on this count must fail.

21. Even otherwise, the intervention at this belated stage of execution proceedings, in the fact and circumstances of the case, seems to be a deliberate attempt to nullify the decree passed in favour of the Appellant herein as when Respondent No. 1 filed objections Under Section 47 Order XXI of the Code, he claimed to be in possession of the suit premises, however, he failed to produce any evidence except two rent receipts for the months of December, 1993 and January 1994 that too when the Respondent No. 1 in his objection petition filed in the execution proceedings of the eviction decree has himself admitted that the there exists a dispute between him and Respondent No. 2 and they had parted their ways.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3996 of 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5489 of 2014)

Decided On: 19.04.2018

 Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 6 SCC 708:AIR 2018 SC 2708

Print Page

Whether after death of original tenant, his heirs succeeds as joint tenants or tenants in common?

 The attention of the learned Judges constituting the Bench in the case of H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul (supra) was not drawn to the view expressed in the case of Mohd. Azeem v. District Judge, Aligarh (supra). There appears to be an apparent conflict between the two judgments. It was on that account that the present appeal was referred to a Bench of three Judges, According to us, it is difficult to hold that after the death of the original tenant his heirs become tenant in common and each one of the heirs shall be deemed to be an independent tenant in his own right. This can be examined with reference to Section 20(2) which contains the grounds on which a tenant can be evicted. Clause (a) of Section 20(2) says that if the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months, and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand, then that shall be a ground on which the landlord can institute a suit for eviction. Take a case where the original tenant who was paying the rent dies leaving behind four sons. It need not be pointed out that after the death of the original tenant, his heirs must be paying the rent jointly through one of his sons. Now if there is a default as provided in Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) Section 20 in respect of the payment of rent, each of the sons will take a stand that he has not committed such default and it is only the other sons who have failed to pay the rent. If the concept of heirs becoming independent tenants is to be introduced, there should be a provision under the Act to the effect that each of the heirs shall pay the proportionate rent and in default thereto such heir or heirs alone shall be liable to be evicted. There is no scope for such division of liability to pay the rent which was being paid by the original tenant, among the heirs as against the landlord what the heirs do inter se, is their concern. Similarly, so far as ground (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20, which says that if the tenant has wilfully caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the building, then the tenant shall be liable to be evicted; again, if one of the sons of the original deceased tenant wilfully causes substantial damage to the building, the landlord cannot get possession of the premises from the heirs of the deceased tenant since the damage was not caused by all of them. Same will be the position in respect of Clauses (c) which is another ground for eviction, i.e. the tenant has without the permission in writing of the landlord made or permitted to be made, any such construction or structural alternation in the building which is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it. Even if the said ground is established by the landlord, he cannot get possession of the building in which construction or structural alterations have been made diminishing its value and utility, unless he establishes that all the heirs of the deceased tenant had done so. Clause (b) do Sub-section (2) of Section 20 prescribes another ground for eviction - that if the tenant has without the consent in writing of the landlord, used it for a purpose other than the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the building or has been convicted under any law for the time being in force of an offence of using the building or allowing it to be used for illegal or immoral purposes; the landlord cannot get possession of the building unless he establishes the said ground individually against all the heirs. We are of the view that if it is held that after the death of the original tenant, each of his heirs becomes independent tenant, then as a corollary it has also to be held that after the death of the original tenant, the otherwise single tenancy stands split up into several tenancies and the landlord can get possession of the building only if he establishes one or the other ground mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 20 against each of the heirs of original tenant. One of the well settled rules of interpretation of statute is that it should be interpreted in a manner which does not lead to an absurd situation.

 It appears to us, in the case of H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul (supra) it was rightly said by this Court that after the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenants jointly. The incidence of the tenancy are the same as those enjoyed by the original tenant. It is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs and there is no division of the premises or of the rent payable therefore and the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants.

26. The framers of the Act have clearly expressed their intention in Sections 12, 20 and 25 while protecting the tenant from eviction except on the grounds mentioned in Section 20, that after the death of the original tenant his heirs will be deemed to be holding the premises as joint tenants, and for any breach committed by any of such joint tenants, all the heirs of the original tenant have to suffer. They cannot take a plea that unless the grounds for eviction mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 20 are established individually against each one of them, they cannot be evicted from the premises in question.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 574 of 1993

Decided On: 05.01.1995

Harish Tandon  Vs.  Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and others

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.B. Sawant, Dr. A.S. Anand and N.P. Singh, JJ.

Citations: 1995 AIR 676, 1995 SCC (1) 537

Print Page

Whether suit against joint tenants are maintainable even if eviction notice is issued only to one tenant?

All these pleas were found against the appellant. It was held that the tenancy was a joint tenancy that a notice to one of the joint tenants was sufficient, and that the suit also was not bad for non-joinder of the legal representatives of Rupji Jeraj. The trial Judge held that the present agreement was enforceable, inasmuch as this case was governed by sub-s. (1) and not sub-s. 4(a) of s. 4 of the Act. For the same reason, the trial Judge also held that the suit was properly laid in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay. The same contentions were raised before us, and we shall deal with them in the same order.

8. The arguments about notice need not detain us long. By the deed of assignment dated February 28, 1947, the tenants took the premises as joint tenants. The exact words of the assignment were that "........ the Assignors do and each of them doth hereby assign and assure with the Assignees as Joint Tenants.......... ". The deed of assignment was approved and accepted by the Trustees of the Port of Bombay, and Rupji Jeraj and the appellant must be regarded as joint tenants. The trial Judge therefore, rightly held them to be so. Once it is held that the tenancy was joint, a notice to one of the joint tenants was sufficient, and the suit for the same reason was also good. Mr. B. Sen, in arguing the case of the appellant, did not seek to urge the opposite. In our opinion, the notice and the frame of the suit were, therefore, proper, and this argument has no merit.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 302 of 1961

Decided On: 27.02.1962

Kanji Manji Vs.The Trustees of The Port of Bombay

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.C. Shah, M. Hidayatullah and S.K. Das, JJ.

Citation: AIR 1963 SC 468

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to implead all legal heirs of deceased tenant in execution proceeding?

Following H.C. Pandey (supra), the Supreme Court in
Ashok Chintaman Juker (supra), held that decree passed
in suit for eviction is binding on all members of original
tenant's family who are covered by tenancy and when the
deceased tenant had two sons, the impleadment of son who
was residing in the tenant premises would be sufficient for
execution of decree and the other son not residing in the
premises is not required to be impleaded, there being no
such interest of making him a party to the eviction
proceeding. 
 In view of the foregoing, the law appears to be settled by the
Supreme Court in umpteen number of decisions that in the
event of death of original tenant, the tenancy devolves on
the legal heirs as joint tenants, therefore, even when only
one of the legal heirs of the deceased tenant, who is in
possession of the property, is impleaded in execution
proceedings, the Executing Court should proceed with the
execution instead of directing the decree holder to implead
other legal heirs of the tenant.
16. At this juncture, it is informed by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that one of the other legal heirs
resides in America (USA), therefore, if the trial Court's order
is complied the execution of the decree will be impossible
and, thus, the impugned order, if it is allowed to stand would
occasion failure of justice.
17. This Court is fully convinced with the submission made by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since in
view of the settled legal position, it would not be necessary
to implead all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant to be
joined in the execution proceedings, if the impugned order is
allowed to stand, it would occasion failure of justice,
therefore, it deserves to be quashed by this Court in
exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Judgment delivered on 02-12-2016
WP227 No. 301 of 2016

 Anil Gupta V  Thamman Singh 

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Citation: AIR 2017 chhatis 1

Print Page

Whether notice of eviction served on one of joint tenants is binding on all joint tenants?

 It is a well established principle of law that
upon death of tenant, the legal representatives become
joint   tenants   and   not   the   tenants   in   common.     The

tenancy   right   is   indivisible.     Therefore,   it   is   an
established principle of law that the notice of eviction
served on one of the joint tenants is binding on all the
joint tenants.   Then if by notice of determination of
tenancy,   issued   to   one   of   the   joint   tenants,   all   the
joint   tenants   would   become   tress­passers   in   case   the
suit   premises   are   not   vacated,     naturally   the   suit
against some of the joint tenants would also bind the
remaining joint tenants.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 112 OF 2012
Rameshchandra Daulal Soni,

V
 Devichand Hiralal Gandhi,

Print Page

When court should pass decree for eviction against tenant if he fails to deposit rent in court on first date of hearing?

 The
facts on record, as detailed supra, would show that the
defendants   No.   1   and   2   not   only   failed   to   tender   the
rent to the plaintiff after receipt of the communication
but they did not even deposit the rent in the court on
the   first   date   of   hearing.   The   decree   passed   by   the
learned   trial   court,   as   confirmed   by   the   learned
Principal  District  Judge,  in  the  circumstances, cannot
be assailed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 112 OF 2012
Rameshchandra Daulal Soni,

V
 Devichand Hiralal Gandhi,


­­­­
   CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

DATED  : 20th JULY, 2015
Citation:2016(6) ALLMR 63

Print Page

Whether notice of eviction served on one legal heir of deceased tenant is binding on other legal heirs of deceased tenant?

It is a well established principle of law that
upon death of tenant, the legal representatives become
joint   tenants   and   not   the   tenants   in   common.     The

tenancy   right   is   indivisible.     Therefore,   it   is   an
established principle of law that the notice of eviction
served on one of the joint tenants is binding on all the
joint tenants.   Then if by notice of determination of
tenancy,   issued   to   one   of   the   joint   tenants,   all   the
joint   tenants   would   become   tres­passers   in   case   the
suit   premises   are   not   vacated,     naturally   the   suit
against some of the joint tenants would also bind the
remaining joint tenants.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 112 OF 2012
 Rameshchandra Daulal Soni,

VERSUS
 Devichand Hiralal Gandhi,

 CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

DATED : 20th JULY, 2015
Citation;2015(6) MHLJ 309 Bom

Print Page

Difference between joint tenants and tenants in common

Own your home as joint tenants or tenants in common? What is the difference?

A question we are regularly asked is whether a Certificate of Title for property ( which we call land), should be held by two persons as 'joint tenants' or as 'tenants in common'. Many people don't know the options exist or don't know the differences between the options.

What does "Joint Tenants" mean?

Where a person holds land as a 'joint tenant', it means that they hold an interest in the land jointly with one or more other people.

Print Page