This article has been written by Nishant Vimal and further updated by Diksha Shastri. The article navigates the entire journey of the position of a female as Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family. To discuss this role in detail, the author has referred to many case laws, legal principles, and amendments over time that helped females attain the role of a Karta in a Hindu Joint Family.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The roles of each family member in various societies have been defined since the primitive ages. In the hunter-gatherer societies, a man’s primary responsibility was hunting and protection, whereas the women gathered the food, cared for children, and managed domestic tasks. However, the elders acted as advisors and passed down knowledge, traditions, and values of their tribe or family.
Similarly, this setting up of defined roles continued in the ancient civilizations and made its way to various societies like an Asian, European, or even African household.
When it comes to the Hindu Joint Family, the roles are set in a way that the men are responsible for paying the bills of the household by work or a joint family business, while the women take care of the household chores and children. The most important role in a Hindu joint family is played by the Karta. In simple terms, the Karta is the head of a Hindu joint family. Since ancient times, this role was specifically meant for the eldest male member of a Hindu family.
However, in modern times, with the changing times, the definitions of these roles seem to get blurred. With the help of cultural changes, technological advancements, and social movements, there is now diversity in the roles and responsibilities of families in modern times. In this article, we will be delving deep into the concept of a Karta in the Hindu family and see whether or not a woman is a Karta of a Hindu family and, if yes, to what extent.
Concept of Karta in a Hindu joint family
Karta is the senior-most male member of the Hindu Joint Family and is the person who is the manager of all the properties of the Hindu Joint Family and takes care of all the other members. He has the maximum power in a Hindu Joint Family, and no one else has that authority.
The origin of the concept of Karta in a Hindu Joint Family is deeply rooted in ancient Hindu law. The derivation of this concept is from the ancient Hindu texts, and a long-standing tradition backs it up.
As the manager or head of the Hindu family, a Karta also has roles and responsibilities for the welfare of the family. These duties include managing family affairs, controlling finances, legal representation, and more.
Who can become a Karta
The senior-most male member is the Karta of the Hindu Joint Family, and, in his absence, the next senior-most male member becomes the Karta. If, in the case where a senior Karta lets go of his right, a junior coparcener can become the Karta after all the other members have consented to it.
In the case of Narendra Kumar J. Modi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat (1976), the Supreme Court decided on the issue of whether or not a minor son of the family could act as the Karta for the family in the case where the senior-most member relinquished his rights. The court held that, if the senior member relinquishes his right to be a Karta, the younger member can be a Karta after obtaining the consent of all family members.
Who are coparceners
We often come across the term “vaaris” of the family property. A coparcener is a term used to refer to the vaaris of a joint family under the Hindu succession laws. Thus, coparceners are a particular class within a Hindu Joint Family. Prior to the amendments in Hindu law, these were only the male members of the Hindu Joint Family. All the coparceners have rights over the property of the Hindu Joint Family. They are derived from 4 successive generations, and the senior-most among these become the Karta of the Hindu Joint Family. According to the Mitakshara Law, the coparcenary starts with the birth of the son in the family.
Female as a coparcener
Before the amendment of laws, only male members of the family were considered as coparceners. However, after the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, was passed, there were significant changes to the law that allowed daughters to be included as coparceners of the Hindu Undivided Family. Section 6 of the Act was amended to provide daughters equal rights and liabilities as the sons to be the coparceners of their Hindu Joint Family property.
Rights of coparceners
All coparceners, regardless of their gender, are entitled to the following rights with respect to their coparcenary property:
Birth-right
All coparceners get a right to the Hindu Joint Family property just by virtue of being born into that family.
Undivided Interest
Their interest in the family remains undivided, along with the rest of the coparceners.
Right to demand partition
In a Hindu Joint Family, all the coparceners have the right to demand partition of the property for their share.
Right to manage property
Apart from the Karta (head), all other coparceners also have the right to manage the family property. However, the final call remains with the Karta.
Female as a Karta
Article 236 of the Mulla Hindu Law has given the definition of “Karta” as follows:
“Manager – Property belonging to a joint family is ordinarily managed by the father or other senior members for the time being of the family. The manager of a joint family is called Karta.”
From this definition given above, it is pretty evident that Karta is either a father, a senior member, or the manager of the family affairs. In the olden days, this definition worked well with the set social roles of the male and female members of a family. However, with the passage of time, when the roles became less rigid and more practical to each individual family’s needs, the issue of whether or not a female member of the family be its Karta started rising.
To meet the changing needs of the development of the cultures in India, it was only fair that, with time, the legal principles also started shifting. This led to the beginning of a long journey for the property rights of women in their ancestral property and their role as a Karta in a HUF.
After taking a look at the meaning of a Karta and a coparcener, it is evident that only a coparcener can be eligible to become the Karta of a family. Especially considering that the most important duty of the Karta is to manage the family property, having the property rights to become a Karta is a must.
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 the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act was made, 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 was upheld in the case of Shreya Vidyarthi vs. Ashok Vidyarthi & Ors. (2015).
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 6 of the Act is all about the devolution of interest in coparcenary property. Thus, it provided the provision to be followed when a joint family property was passed down by survivorship. According to this section, whenever a male Hindu passed away, his interest in the Mitakshara coparcenary property would devolve to the surviving male members. However, there was also an important exception for females in the family, i.e if the deceased Hindu male left a female relative surviving, the right to property would devolve amongst members by testamentary or intestate succession and not by survivorship.
This provision led to several complex inheritance issues, considering the limited rights of daughters and the extreme focus on male lineage. As a result, the Amendment Act of 2005 was passed.
Post-amendment, this provision was altered significantly. This amendment eradicated the focus on male lineage through the rule of survivorship and gave females equal rights over property as the sons of a Hindu family. This amendment is a huge example of why the law needs to be changed with time. Over the years, these changes brought around a new bright future, opening the doors for females to lead and provide for their family while also gaining equal rights over their inheritance as their brothers and uncles. Let us take a look at the effects of the amendment below.
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
A major breakthrough towards eradicating gender inequality and discrimination, to prevent the gender bias that has been prevalent in families in India, and to improve the adverse condition of women in society has been ensured with the enactment of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. This amendment has conferred equal property rights on daughters of a Hindu Joint Family. Now, a daughter can be a coparcener in a Hindu Joint Family in the same way as the sons.
After her marriage, she becomes a part of her husband’s Hindu Joint Family but does not cease to be a coparcener in the Hindu Joint Family of her father. She can exercise all the rights given to any coparcener before and even after marriage. She can have a right over the property of the Hindu Joint Family and also can alienate that property either by way of sale or will. The daughter will also get the property if any coparcener dies, just like the way sons get the property.
In a situation when a female coparcener dies before partition, then children of such coparcener would be eligible for claiming that property as they would have been entitled to such property in the future. A widow of a pre-deceased son is eligible for a share in the property as a legal heir of that pre-deceased son of the Hindu Joint Family. Even if she remarries, she will have this interest in that Hindu Joint Family property.
According to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, daughter, mother, widow, predeceased son’s daughter and his widow, predeceased son’s widow, and daughter’s daughter are entitled to their respective shares as per the provision.
Rights of daughters in the property after the Amendment Act of 2005
The following rights were granted to daughters as a result of the 2005 amendment:
Coparcenary birth-right
Coparcenary rights in property were only given to the sons of the family before the amendment. However, now the daughters are also recognised as coparceners by birthright.
Equal property right
Since this amendment, daughters have had equal rights in ancestral property as sons. As a result, they can also control the property and its transfer and demand partition to obtain their share in the property.
Equal responsibilities
Along with the rights come responsibilities. After the 2005 amendment, the daughters of a Hindu Joint Family are also subjected to the same liabilities in the property as the sons. Thus, it may also fall upon a female as per the circumstance to become the manager or Karta of the family as and when required.
Right to dispose of property
As a result of the amendment, the daughters also gained a chance to dispose of their shares in the joint family property by way of a will.
Can a widow be a Karta
To become a Karta, the senior-most member must be a male as well as a coparcener of that particular Hindu Joint Family. Because the widow was, previously, never considered as a coparcener of the Hindu Joint Family, a widow never became a Karta. Let us take a look at the various decisions of the courts of India over the years.
Certain females are entitled to shares of family property if the partition is done. The father’s wife, mother, and grandmother are entitled to obtain a share of the joint family properties as per the provisions of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1987. According to Section 10, 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.
Coming to the position of Karta, the norm in earlier times was that the Karta of the Hindu Joint Family is the senior-most male member and, hence, a female was never given the recognition. The additional qualification to become a Karta is that one must be a coparcener of the Hindu Joint Family. Therefore, females never became a Karta of a joint family because they did not satisfy both aforesaid qualifications.
Many courts have held that only a coparcener can become Karta of HUF. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur vs. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills Ltd. (1965), the same thing was held by the court while deciding on the validity of a partnership firm between two Kartas, after the death of one Karta. In the case, when the deceased left behind widows and minor sons, one of the widows of the Hindu Joint Family had taken over as the guardian, which led to the dispute. However, in those times without the coparcenary rights, women were not considered as the Karta.
In the case of Radha Ammal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1949), the Madras High Court had to decide the validity of a partnership deed for its registration, entered into by a widow of the Karta of a Hindu Joint Family on behalf of minor sons and strangers. It was held that, since a widow is not considered a coparcener, she does not have any legal qualification to become a manager or Karta of a Hindu Joint Family. The court further also emphasised that the wife had obtained her right as a manager of the business of her husband only by survivorship and not by birth. This turned out to be the core justification behind her not having the right of a coparcener.
However, there were some different interpretations that were being made for the inclusion of females in the concept of coparcener, or Karta. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Seth Laxmi Narayan Raghunathdas (1948) reasoned that, since, in Dayabhaga Law, a widow may be a coparcener, she may even be the Karta of the family, particularly if she is the only member sui juris left in the family. For Mitakshara Law, where, along with a male coparcener, a female may not be a coparcener because she does not possess the right of survivorship, the court observed that this right or the status of a coparcener is not a requisite for being the manager or Karta of a joint Hindu family to which she has been admitted.
However, in times of necessity, a widow can be appointed as a Karta of the Hindu Joint Family. In the case of C.P. Berai vs. Laxmi Narayan (1948), it was held by the tribunal that a widow could be a Karta in a situation when there are no adult male members left in the family. Any Karta should act for the benefit of the Hindu Joint Family, and if a widow has the intention of doing so, she should be appointed as the Karta.
Can a married daughter be a Karta
From the information and case laws presented until now, it is pretty evident that, prior to the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act in 2005, a daughter was not considered as a coparcener, irrespective of her marital status.
However, after the amendment, the daughters have had an equal birthright to the ancestral property. Let us see what the courts have held in this respect after the amendment.
In the case of Sujata Sharma vs. Manu Gupta (2016), amongst various issues, the Delhi High Court had to decide on whether or not the plaintiff, aka Sujata Sharma, would be considered a coparcener in the HUF after considering that she was married since 1977. Another issue was, if she was the coparcener, was she also entitled to become the Karta? The position of the plaintiff as the oldest living member of the family was undisputed. With that said, the court relied on Section 6 of the Act, along with various other provisions, and allowed the petition as the majority of the issues were in favour of the plaintiff. The statutory provisions had provided her the birthright to be the coparcener and, further, be eligible to be the Karta of the HUF.
How did the question of a female being a Karta in a Hindu Joint Family arise
According to the beliefs of Sanatan dharma, women and men have always had equal rights. The roles played by them for their families varied, but that was not considered as a reason for marginalisation of the Hindu women.
Acting upon this source, in the case of Pandurang Vithoba Dahake vs. Pandurang Ramchandra Gorle (1946), it was held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that any adult member of any family, male or female, is entitled to the right to become the manager of the property and act with bona fide intention. Besides this, the court also held that, under a legal necessity, the mother had the right to act as the manager of the property interests of her son. Relying on these facts, Justice Puranik, in the said case, decided that the mother can be the manager of a Hindu Joint Family.
Powers of a Karta
Being the natural leader or head of a Hindu undivided family, the Karta is empowered with certain powers. These powers are supposed to let the Karta carry on their functions as the manager of the family.
Power to manage the family business
Since ancient times, Hindu family businesses have been managed by the Karta of the family. Karta heads the family business and makes all the necessary decisions to ensure the growth of profits. The Karta can do anything or ask any of the family members to perform a legal activity for the growth of the family business. Moreover, it is also the basic duty of a Karta to see that the family business runs smoothly. Therefore, it’s Karta’s primary responsibility.
Power to control income and expenses
Karta receives all the income earned by the members of the Hindu joint family, and he allows the funds to all the members as per their needs and takes the decision as to when the HJF needs to spend the money. This gives them the absolute power to manage the entire finances of the family, including incomes from various other sources.
For example, if you are a part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and are interested in making an investment for the future security of your family, the last and final call of approval for the investment must come from the Karta. With this power, the Karta can effectively manage the budget of a family with ease.
Power to make decisions
In a Hindu Joint Family, a Karta is highly respected as the natural leader of the family. Hence, the major decision-making power also remains with him. Karta takes care of all family affairs and makes decisions regarding the same; hence, Karta has the most power in the Hindu Joint Family.
For example, any decision related to buying, selling, or leasing properties of the Hindu family will be valid only after obtaining the approval of the Karta.
Power of representation
The Karta is not a mere leader but also the legal representative of the Hindu Joint Family. This is an important power of the Karta because in the case of Chhotey Lal and Ors. vs. Jhandey Lal and Anr. (1972), it was held that a Hindu Joint Family cannot be a party to a suit because it does not have a separate legal existence. Thus, as the manager, Karta is responsible for legally representing the Hindu Joint Family in all suits.
Power to refer any matter to arbitration
Any conflict or dispute involving a member of the Hindu Joint Family or the family as a whole, Karta has the power to refer that matter to arbitration, and his decision is binding on all the members with respect to this.
Power to compromise
Karta has the power to settle any matter of property or any family debts, among other disputes. If it is done with bona fide intention. This also refers to the power of the Karta to conduct court settlements for internal or external disputes within the family.
For example, if the title for a piece of agricultural land of your family is in dispute with your neighbours, the Karta of your family can choose either to settle the matter by reaching a compromise or to take the neighbours to court.
Power to acknowledge contract debts
Karta has the power to take loans and pay off loans of a particular member of the Hindu Joint Family. However, if he takes a loan for the benefit of the family business, the duty to repay the loan comes to all the members of the Hindu Joint Family.
Power to enter into a contract
Karta has the power to enter into a contract in which the Hindu Joint Family is involved. He will represent the family in respect of all legal contracts they enter into on their behalf.
Power to alienate
Karta has the power to alienate any of the Hindu Joint Family property in the following cases:
- If there is a legal necessity;
- If he has done so for the benefit of the estate; or
- If he has done so in case of an emergency.
In simpler terms, alienation means the act of disposing of a property. Thus, the Karta of a family also has the right to control the movement of family property, as long as he acts in good faith for the well-being of the family.
Powers of a female as a Karta
Earlier in certain cases like Sushila Devi Rampuria vs. Income Tax Officer (1959), the Calcutta High Court held that, where the remaining male members of the Hindu Joint Family are minors, their natural guardian is their mother. Hence, the mother can represent the Hindu Joint Family in an issue of assessment and recovery of income tax.
But, in recent cases like Sujata Sharma vs. Mannu Gupta (2016), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has interpreted the Amendment Act of 2005 in a way that will extend the applicability of the amendment to not just the Hindu women who will be recognised as coparceners in a the same way as the son, but also recognising the eldest woman member of the Hindu Undivided Family as the Karta of the Hindu Undivided family and its properties.
The point to remember is that the only hindrance for a female to be a Karta was the fact that they are not coparceners in a Hindu Joint Family. Under Mitakshara law, they have been given equal rights as that of a son. Son being a coparcener makes way for the instant effect that daughter can also become a coparcener. Hence, there is no firm argument as to why daughters cannot be made a Karta. When it comes to the question of a widow being a Karta, a widow is never a coparcener; hence, she will never become a Karta.
Current situation of a female as a Karta in society
A recent judgement on this issue passed by the Delhi High Court is a pertinent example. In the case of Manu Gupta vs. Sujata Sharma & Ors. (2023), the court very carefully examines how the marginalisation of women over the years has left a situation where, even after the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act in 2005, there is still a stigma around considering women as the Karta of a Hindu Joint Family. The present case was an appeal to the earlier judgement passed in 2015, as discussed hereinabove. The older order had allowed Sujata Sharma, i.e., the respondent, to claim her rights as the Karta of their HUF.
The grounds for this appeal were the fact that the respondent had already been married and was involved in the operations of the HUF of her marital home, resulting in a limitation to her involvement in the HUF of her ancestors. Further, they even claimed that the Karta was decided on the basis of Hindu laws and customs, which must not be ignored. They also claimed that the amendment did not affect the grounds on which a person can be a Karta. It was further claimed that the changes in Section 6 only allowed women rights in the coparcenary property and not the rights over Kartaship.
However, the court upheld the decision of the learned single judge in this regard and made significant progress towards the social acceptance and awareness of the position of females as a Karta in recent times.
This reaffirms the current standing that gender must not be a bar in assuming the role of a Karta.
Landmark precedents
G. Sekar vs. Geetha and Ors. (2009)
In this case, the male and female members of a family were in a dispute regarding the division of ancestral property within their HUF. The dispute arose following the deaths of the patriarch and Karta of the family, who held all the coparcenary property. The son claimed exclusive rights over the property, asserting traditional male coparcenary rights.
Based on the 2005 amendment, the female members also claimed their equal rights in the HUF property. Gradually, the dispute reached the Supreme Court of India. The issues in question were:
- Whether daughters have coparcenary rights post-amendment?
- Whether or not the amendment has a retrospective effect, applying to daughters born before the amendment came into force?
Decision of the case
The Supreme Court very fairly recognised the rights of the daughters in coparcenary property. More importantly, the court even clarified the effect of the amendment and emphasised that this right was applicable to all daughters, whether born before or after the amendment. This judgement was one of the initial steps in upholding gender equality in inheritance.
Prakash vs. Phulavati (2015)
This case is another important precedent that made it easier for daughters to claim their rights over the Hindu Joint Family property. The main issue involved was whether the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, gave daughters equal rights as sons and was the effect applicable retrospectively. In this case, it was held by the Supreme Court that the law applied prospectively and the daughters could only claim rights in the property if the father had passed away after the amendment was enacted. You can read more about this case here.
Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs. Amar (2018)
The facts of this case are such that one Gurulingappa Savadi, the Karta of a Hindu Joint Family, had two sons and two daughters. He passed away in 2001. After his death, his grandson filed a suit for possession of the property. He further argued that the daughters were not coparceners as they were born before the Succession Act was passed in 1956. Contesting this suit, the daughters claimed a right to share in the ancestral property. The Trial Court had ordered in favour of the sons, denying the rights of the daughters on the grounds that they were born before the Act.
Further, the High Court even upheld the decision of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. As a result, the present review petition was filed. The main question before the Supreme Court was whether or not the daughters born before the Hindu Succession Act were entitled to coparcenary rights post-2005 amendment.
Decision of the court
The Supreme Court held that the daughters have the same coparcenary rights in ancestral property as the sons, regardless of whether the father was alive or not when the amendment was made applicable. This decision is another significant progress towards bringing gender equality into inheritance matters.
It was also held that the daughter was a coparcener by birth, the same as the son. Hence, the date of death of the father did not matter to prove the daughter’s right to ancestral property. This case is a great example of precedent for future cases.
Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020)
Another landmark judgement decided by the Supreme Court of India interprets the amendments to the Hindu Succession Act. In this case, Vineeta Sharma was seeking her rights in the coparcenary property post-amendment. This was contested by her brother, Rakesh Sharma.
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the daughter, i.e., Vineeta Sharma, had coparcenary property rights despite her father having passed away before the 2005 amendment came into effect. Thus, the case revolved around the retrospective effect of the amendment. Another important issue was whether the amendment had any effects on the partition suits that were filed before the enactment of the 2005 Act.
Decision of the court
This decision was also important considering the fact that it would resolve the conflicting views found in the various precedents set before and after the amendment. The Supreme Court, after interpreting Section 6, held that daughters have coparcenary rights in property since birth, just like the sons of a Hindu Joint Family. With this progressive interpretation of the statute, the court has upheld gender equality against women in property rights.
Conclusion
God created everyone equal, then as civilizations grew, everyone started following set roles; as discussed, the women were mostly seen as domesticated. With the passage of time, equality started becoming a distant dream as the unfair treatment and marginalisation of the assumed weaker gender began increasing. Beyond the violence against women, for several years, they have not even been given any rights in their own household, including inheritance and property rights.
The rigid laws in India have always resulted in women being marginalised. The role of Karta stands secondary; until 2005, Hindu daughters were not even considered entitled to the joint family or ancestral property. Even the role of Karta was only available to the senior male members. Women were never given consideration until recent times. Now, the legislation and judiciary in India have exercised their powers and authority in such a way that gender equality is ensured.
In the olden days, the reasoning was given by the courts that women could not become a Karta because one of the coparceners is only appointed as a Karta and women could not become a coparcener. But the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, gives equal rights to daughters in the Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property as the sons have.
The amendment of 2005 has cleared the pathway for women to be coparceners in a Hindu Joint Family and has given them consideration for being the Karta. In a lot of cases, we have seen that justice is denied because of a lack of knowledge about one’s rights or awareness of the law. Therefore, this law and amendment should result in greater convenience for women, and it may be easier for them to know about their rights. Measures should be taken to implement their rights.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Can a female create HUF?
A female can be the Karta of an existing HUF. However, for a Hindu Undivided Family, only a single member is not enough. So, a single member, whether male or female, cannot create a HUF.
Is there a gender for Karta?
No, there is no set gender for a Karta. Post-2005 Amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, females too have equal rights in ancestral property, paving the way for them to take over the position of a Karta as and when applicable. Thus, male or female, either member can be a Karta of HUF.
What is the role of a female as Karta?
As the Karta, a female has the right to represent the HUF in all matters, control the family and HUF business matters, and take any action in the good faith of the HUF.
What is the difference between a coparcener and a Karta?
All members with the right to ancestral property by birth can be the coparcener. However, only the eldest surviving member can assume the role of the Karta of the property. While all coparceners have the right to a share in ancestral property, the Karta is the one that takes control over all the matters and represents the family.
Which laws allow females to be Karta in India?
No law explicitly states that a female can be Karta. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in many judgments held that females can take up the position of managers and the role of Karta in a Hindu family. The most important judgement was the case of Sujata Sharma vs. Manu Gupta.
References
- https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/12/12/delhi-hc-woman-can-be-karta-of-a-hindu-undivided-family-legal-news/
- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4317909
