Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors.
Background
This was a decades-long dispute between a step-mother (Darubai) and her four step-daughters (one of whom, Kamalabai, was the respondent) over land and houses left behind by the family patriarch, Dajiba, who died intestate (without a will). The daughters sued for partition, claiming a combined 4/5th share of the property; Darubai defended a partial sale of the property to a third party, claiming she had sold it as "karta" (family manager) out of legal necessity, to fund one daughter's marriage. The trial court ruled for the daughters, the first appellate court partly sided with Darubai on the sale, and the High Court in second appeal restored the trial court's original decree in the daughters' favour, prompting Darubai's appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that when property devolves under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (i.e., a Hindu man dies without a will), his heirs inherit it as individual "tenants-in-common" with fixed, separate shares, not as members of a joint Hindu family holding it jointly under a "karta" (manager) system. Relying on its own settled precedent (CWT v. Chander Sen and later cases), the Court explained that such inherited property does not automatically become joint family "coparcenary" property, and no one heir can claim to manage or sell the whole as its karta. Since Darubai and her four step-daughters each held a fixed 1/5th share upon Dajiba's death, Darubai had no legal authority as "karta" to sell any part of the property beyond her own 1/5th share, even citing family necessity. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the daughters' partition decree, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
When a Hindu man dies without a will, his heirs (including widow and daughters) each inherit a fixed, individual share of the property as co-owners, not as a joint family unit, so no single heir can act as a "karta" to sell or manage the whole property on behalf of the others without their consent.