| Introduction | jurisprudence |
| relevant Case law | Mrs. Sujata Sharma v. Shri Manu Gupta226 (2016) DLT 647 Shreya Vidyarthi vs Ashok Vidyarthi |
| present problem | questions related |
| conclusion | decision as per our reasoning |
Karta is the eldest male member of the family.The presumption of seniormost male member is very strong as this position is regulated by seniority and does not depend upon merely the consent of other family members. As long as karta is alive, no one can be his own can be a karta.If the karta is dead , then agreement is required of all members to be karta and in the case of conflict, the seniormost member would serve as karta.
The position of Karta is Sui Generis, it means he has unique position. The relation karta and other members are very difficult to explain, as it has no parallel in any kind of relationship. He has a lot of positions in family like, custodian of family, legal representative, trustee, manager, agent, etc. There are several responsibilities of karta like to provide food shelter clothes to his family, maintainence of family affairs, bear expenses, pay debts, etc.
Generally, females are not Karta but in some cases, female can be a karta.Certain females are entitled to shares if the partition is done. Father’s wife, mother and grandmother are entitled to share as per Hindu women’s Right to Property Act 1987 when a coparcener dies and leaves behind a widow. She will be entitled to take the property to the extent of her husband’s share. Widow cannot be a karta, a widow is not a coparcener and every Karta is appointed from one of the coparceners.
Earlier, a female was not given the chance to be a coparcener, she was not empowered to act as Karta prior to the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act. However, after the amendment of 2005 in Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, was done keeping in mind and respecting the position of a female member, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in the same way as the son.This amendment deleted section 4(2) of the act and paved the way for equal rights of women as men. The amendment of section 6 has elevated the daughters’ position. A daughter, after marriage, becomes a member of her husband’s joint Hindu family but doesn’t cease to be the coparcener of her father’s family. She fully enjoys the rights of the property of her father as well as her in-laws.
Relevant Case Laws:
Shreya Vidyarthi vs Ashok Vidyarthi & Ors
facts:
One Hari Shankar Prasad had two wives. After his death, the second wife took care of the family and managed the day to day affairs. She was the nominee of an insurance policy and was also receiving monthly maintenance from a trust. It was contended that the property she bought was from her funds and joint family funds. Later on, property disputes aroused.
issue:
can a widow be a karta?
judgement:
The court observed that a Hindu widow is not a coparcener in the Hindu Undivided Family of her husband and therefore, cannot act a Karta. But after his husband’s death, if they are no surviving male members/ coparceners in the family, the widow can be the manager of the family to run the day-to-day affairs. The mother of the minor male coparcener can take up the role of managing the family. She can also take decisions regarding the family under particular circumstances.
Mrs. Sujata Sharma vs Shri Manu Gupta
facts:
In this case, DR Gupta and his sons held a bungalow in Delhi and a few movable properties andshares on a long-term lease. On 1st October 1971, Mr. DR Gupta died leaving behind him the five sons alongside their respective families. Mr. Kishan Mohan Gupta, the eldest son, became the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family. At a later time, all the five sons of DR Gupta also died, and therefore the son of the younger brother of Kishan Gupta declared himself as the Karta of the HUF because he was the oldest living member of the said HUF.The plaintiff challenged him by stating that after her father and her uncles, she is the senior-mostmember of HUF by the plaintiff, eldest daughter of Mr. Kishan Gupta.
issue:
Whether the eldest daughter amongst the coparceners of Hindu Undivided family, be entitled as Karta?
judgement:
In the present case, the plaintiff’s entitlement arose upon the demise of the eldest Karta, a fact corroborated by correspondences with the Land and Building Department.Undeniably, she held the status of the eldest co-parcener, making her eligible for the position of Karta within the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), as mandated by law.The contention that female co-parceners could inherit equally but be barred from managing the HUF property is unsubstantiated by Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 a legislation designed to ensure gender-neutral inheritance rights.The removal of the qualification barrier for female co-parceners to become Kartas signifies a progressive stride towards gender equality.Thus, courts must vigilantly safeguard the statutory provisions that enhance female inheritance rights.Considering the Amendment in Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the court said that Amendment of 2005 to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which conferred coparcenary rights to the women, equivalent to that of men, is a quintessence of another reform in law relating to women empowerment and applies in this case as well even when the father dies before 2005.
The SC held that the plaintiff’s entitlement to her father’s share in the HUF persisted post-marriage, as per Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, render her a rightful Karta.
Present Problem:
An agriculturist Mitakshara joint family comprised of M, his wife W, minor son S and his daughter D. M married his daughter D in another village to his friend’s son DH. The family had vast agricultural land and no other property. M died in 2007. Soon after M’s death W took control of the entire family and the property. She sold a part of the property to her brother in 2009 at much lower price than the market price on the ground that it was left barren for years. D challenges the sale by W, claims to be the Karta and also for her share in the agricultural property. Decide with the help of case-laws.
Answer : W can be a karta when there is no seniormost member is there but the sale of barren land made to her brother was not a valid sale as it is not a benefit of estate. D challenges the position of the Karta, so D can be a karta after 2005 amendment whether married or not, just like a son, she can serve as karta and can manage family affairs. D can claim share in agricultural property.
In Babu Ram vs Santokh Singh case, it was held that plaintiff can claim share in agriculture property as section 22 of HSA applies to all kinds of land including agricultural land.
