Delhi High Court: In an appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 22-12-2015, whereby Respondent 1 was declared as the Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (‘HUF’), the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna*, JJ., opined that being a Karta was conferment of legal status, which included the right to manage the HUF properties and if the appellant represented himself as Karta in official correspondence, it did not take away the legal right of the eldest member of the coparcener of the family to be a Karta even if she was a woman. The Court opined that neither the legislature nor the traditional Hindu law in any way limited the rights of a woman to be Karta and also, societal perceptions could not be a reason to deny the rights expressly conferred by the legislature. Thus, the Court declared Respondent 1 as the Karta for the purpose of representing the HUF before the competent authority.
Background
In an instant case, the appellants and the respondents were the descendants of Late D.R. Gupta and were governed by the Mitakshara Law. Since 05-01-1963, Late D.R. Gupta constituted a HUF known as D.R. Gupta and Sons, and comprised of himself and his five sons.
Subsequently, Late D.R. Gupta voluntarily put his moveable and immovable properties in a common hotch-potch and by an affidavit dated 05-01-1963, declared that all the properties should belong to HUF of which he should be the ‘Karta’ with right of survivorship and all other incidents of undivided coparcenary on his wife and his five sons. Over a period of time, all the five sons of Late D.R. Gupta expired.
Thus, a question arose regarding who would acquire the status of the Karta of the HUF. Thereafter, members of the HUF exchanged various e-mails regarding Respondent 1, daughter of one of the five sons to become Karta of the HUF. Thus, being the eldest coparcener and in view of the law as amended in the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, Respondent 1 claimed to be the next Karta of the HUF. However, the appellant objected to Respondent 1’s claim and declared himself as the Karta of HUF. Thus, Respondent 1 filed a suit before the Trial Court seeking declaration that she was the Karta of HUF.
The Trial Court observed that the necessary qualifications for becoming a Karta was being a coparcener of the HUF and only impediment that disallowed a woman from becoming a Karta was the lack of this necessary qualification. The Trial Court opined that after the amendment, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘HSA’) did not impose any restriction on right of a woman to being a coparcener and she could not be denied a status of Karta to manage the affairs, including the property of HUF. Thus, Respondent 1 was declared as the Karta of the HUF.
Thereafter, the appellant filed the present appeal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
Considering the issue regarding effect of amendment in HSA in 2005 and its changes any changes in the concept of Joint Family or its properties, the Court opined that a Joint Hindu Family consisted of male members which descended lineally and from a common male ancestor, together with their mothers, wives, widows and unmarried daughters. They were bound together by the fundamental principle of Sapindaship or family relationship, which was the essential feature of the institution. The Court opined that a coparcenary was a narrower body which was a subset within a Joint Hindu Family where an interest in the property was created by birth.
The Court relied on Gansavant Balsavant v. Narayan Dhond Savant, 1883 SCC OnLine Bom 1 and opined that it might be concluded that necessary qualifications to become a Karta were birth in the Joint Hindu Family, seniority by age and the status of being a coparcener. The Court opined that traditional law nowhere prescribed a female from being a manager but the requisite of being senior most male member was the necessary corollary to become a coparcener. This limitation was redressed by amendment to Section 6 of the HSA, which now conferred equal status of the coparcener on woman equating her rights to be at par with a son. Therefore, the Court opined that having acquired the status of the coparcener, Respondent 1 should be entitled to acquire the status of Karta.
The Court referred to the preamble of the HSA, Prince Ernest of Hanover v. Attorney General, [1957] A.C. 436 and R. Venkataswami Naidu v. Narasram Naraindas, AIR 1966 SC 361 and opined that nothing prevented the legislature from providing coparcenary rights to a daughter on the same footing as the son. The Court further opined that any explicit language of Section 6 of the HSA made it abundantly clear that though the reference in the Preamble might be related to inheritance but conferring same rights would include every right that a coparcener had, including a right to be a Karta.
The Court opined that “the Amendment to Section 6 of HSA redefines the meaning of coparcenary as understood under the traditional Hindu Law, which is no longer limited to devolution of interest in the coparcenary property alone but encompasses all other incidents of a Coparcener, including the right to be a Karta. To say that a woman can be a coparcener but not a Karta, would be giving an interpretation which would not only be anomalous but also against the stated Object of introduction of Amendment.”
The Court opined that providing any other interpretation to deny the right of a woman to be a coparcener and a Karta, would strike the very object of giving the woman an equal right to property as a man. The right to manage the property was incidental to ownership, and it was absurd to claim that the owner of an estate was curtailed from the right to manage it.
With regard to the appellant’s contention that Respondent 1 had not been involved in the management of HUF properties post her marriage and the appellant took charge of managing the properties, the Court relied on Union of India v. Sree Ram Bohra, AIR 1965 SC 1531 and Bhagwan Dayal v. Reoti Devi, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 52; Sunderlal Nanalal v. CIT, Ahmedabad, 1983 SCC OnLine Guj 198 and opined being a karta was a legal entitlement of the eldest member of an HUF, therefore, a HUF could not have two kartas, but the duty of the management could be performed by another coparcener. The Court opined that this relegation of managerial responsibility did not take away the legal title of a Karta, unless it was renounced by the person legally entitled to be a Karta.
The Court further opined that the appellant’s contention that the husband of a female Karta would have an indirect control over the activities of the HUF of her father’s family was a parochial mindset and even the legislature had attempted to oust it through Section 14 of the HAS. The Court opined that “woman who has absolute ownership in a property cannot be denied a right to manage it on the warped reasoning that she may get influenced by her in-laws. Thus, societal apprehension and reluctance can never truncate legislative enactments to do away with patriarchal discrimination.”
Thus, the Court opined that being a Karta was conferment of legal status which included the right to manage the HUF properties and even if the appellant represented himself as Karta in official correspondence, it did not take away the legal right of the eldest member of the coparcener of the family to be a Karta even if she was a woman. The Court opined that neither the legislature nor the traditional Hindu law in any way limited the rights of a woman to be Karta and also, societal perceptions could not be a reason to deny the rights expressly conferred by the legislature, thus, there was no impediment in Respondent 1 being the Karta of the HUF.
The Court relied on Vineet Shamra v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1 and opined that the daughter’s right of a coparcener to enjoy the status of a coparcener could not hinge upon the life span of her father. Such a distinction could certainly not sustain the test of intelligible differentia that was sought to be addressed through the amendment in HSA.
Thus, the Court declared Respondent 1 as the Karta for the purpose of representing the HUF before the competent authority.
[Manu Gupta v. Sujata Sharma, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7722, decided on 04-12-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Aslam Ahmed, Charu Shriyam Singh and Abhishek Dwivedi, Advocates; Aakanksha Kaul, Amicus Curiae with Manek Singh, Aman Sahani and Harsh Ojha, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Mala Goel, Advocate; Anita Trehan, Sarita Dhuper, Kajal Chandra, Prerna Chopra, Divye Puri and Sakshi Anand, Advocates; Brajesh Kr. Srivastava, Deo Prakash Sharma, Manoj Yadav and Umesh Kr. Gupta, Advocates
