DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

FAMILY LAW
(PROJECT)

THE KARTA OF A FAMILY

SUBMITTED BY: UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:

SHIVANG MEHROTRA MR. PASWAN M. SINGH

ROLL NO: 126 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (LAW)

SECTION B DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA

B.A. LLB (Hons.), SEMESTER IV NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE KARTA OF A FAMILY...................................................................................................i

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................................................iv

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................6

POSITION OF KARTA...........................................................................................................8

Senior-most Male Member:..........................................................................................8

Junior Male Member:...................................................................................................8

Female Members as Karta:..........................................................................................9

More than one Karta.....................................................................................................9

Minor as Karta..............................................................................................................9

POSITION REGARDING PROPERTY.............................................................................10

1. Immovable Property...................................................................................................10

2. Movable Property........................................................................................................12

CHARACTERISTICS/POWERS........................................................................................13

1. Power of management.................................................................................................13

2. Right to Income...........................................................................................................13

3. Right to representation...............................................................................................14

4. Power to compromise..................................................................................................14

5. Power to refer a dispute to arbitration......................................................................14

6. Power of acknowledgement and to contract debts...................................................14

7. Power to enter into contract.......................................................................................14

8. Power of alienation......................................................................................................14

2
LIABILITIES.........................................................................................................................15

1. Liable to maintain.......................................................................................................15

2. Liability to render accounts.......................................................................................15

3. Liability to recover debts due to the family..............................................................16

4. Liability to spend reasonably.....................................................................................16

5. Liability not to alienate coparcenary property.........................................................16

6. Liable not to start new business:................................................................................17

CASE ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................18

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................19

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my Family Law teacher, Mrs.Samreen Hussain for helping me
whenever I needed her assistance and for helping me gain interest in this subject. I would also
like to thank my parents for supporting me. Last, but not the least I would like to
acknowledge my seniors and batch mates for their constant support which helped me
tremendously in completing this project.

4
5
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Bhagyamma v. Ningaramma, I.L.R 2009 Kar. 118..................................................................18

Bhowani v. Jagannath, (1909) 13 Cal. W.N. 309.....................................................................10
Chanumuri Subhaveni and Ors. V. Sappa Srinivasa Rao and Ors., 2004 (4) A.L.D. 745.......18
Dharma Singh v. Sadhu Singh, A.I.R. 1997 P. & H. 198.........................................................11
Gangadhar Agarwal v. C.I.T., (1989) 162 I.T.R. 320 (Bom)...................................................12
Gangadhar Rao v. Ganga Rao, A.I.R. 1968 A.P. 291..............................................................10
Gauramma v. Mallappa, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 510........................................................................11
Jawwala Singh v. Lachman Das, A.I.R. 1974 P. & H. 188......................................................11
Krishnamoorthy Gounder v. Sitarama Gounder and Ors, (2002) 3 M.L.J. 284......................18
Laxminarayanan v. Dinker, (1943) 3 Nag. 390........................................................................15
Narendra Kumar v. C.I.T., A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1953...................................................................10
Nemi Chand v. Hira Chand, 2000 (1) H.L.R. 250 (Raj)............................................................9
Raghunanda v. Brozo Kishoro, (1876) 1 Mad. 69......................................................................8
S. Rangaswamy v. A.P. Transco and Ors, 2002 (4) A.L.T. 108................................................18
Sarda Prasad v. Umeshwar Prasad, (1963) Pat. 274...............................................................10
Shankarlal Ladha v. Vasanth Deshmukh and Ors., 2009 (111) Bom. L.R. 393.......................18
Sunil Kumar v. Ram Prakash. A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 576................................................................18
Suraj Bansi Koer v. Sheo Parsad, (1880) 5 Cal. 148.................................................................8
Union of India v. Sri Ram Bohra, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1531........................................................13
Union of India v. Sri Ram Bohra,A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1531............................................................9

6
 INTRODUCTION

A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, "Karta" denotes
managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.Karta means manager of
joint family and joint family properties. There is no office or institution in any other system
of the world can be compared with it. He is a person that possesses such vast power within
the ambit of joint family which nobody enjoys.

He is the person who takes care of day to day expenses of the family, looks after the family
and protects the joint family properties. The Karta occupies a position superior to that of
other members and has full authority to manage crucial affairs of the family. These include
taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

It is a presumption that ordinarily senior most male member is the Karta and Karta is always
a member in the family and no outsider or stranger can become a Karta.

Regarding the issue of female members of a family assuming Kartaship, there has been
considerable amount of discussion in the Supreme Court of India as well as the High Courts.
The Nagpur High court once held that though a mother is not a coparcener, she can be the
Karta in absence of male members. But the Supreme Court reversed the Nagpur High Courts
findings in another judgment and declared that no female member can assume Kartaship
whatsoever. However, a recent judgment by the Delhi High Court has declared in the
landmark verdict that the eldest female member of a family can be its Karta.

7
 POSITION OF KARTA

The manager of the joint family is called the karta. 1In a Hindu Joint Family, the Karta or
Manager occupies a pivotal and unique place in that there is no comparable office or
institution in any other system in the world. His office is independent of any other and hence
his position is termed as sui generis. The question remains that who can be the Karta of the
family. It is a presumption that ordinarily senior most male member is the Karta and Karta is
always a member in the family and no outsider or stranger can become a Karta.

It is the duty of the karta to see that all reasonable wants of the members are satisfied. If the
karta fails to fulfil his duty, the members could enforce it by legal action. 2 An undivided
Hindu family is ordinarily joint not only in estate, but also in food or worship; therefore, not
only the concerns of the joint property, but whatever relates to their commensality and their
religious duties and observances, must be regulated by its members or the business manager
to whom they have expressly, or by implication, delegated the task of regulation 3. The karta
represents his joint family on all matters, whether they are religious, social or legal in
character.

Senior-most Male Member:

The senior-most male member of the family is entitled to this position and it is his right
provided he is otherwise fit to act as such that he is not suffering from any physical or mental
deficiency.4. His right is not subject to any agreement or any other understanding between the
coparceners. He may be aged, infirm or ailing, yet if he is still alive, then he shall be entitled
to Kartaship.

1SurajBansiKoer v. SheoParsad, (1880) 5 Cal. 148.

2Werner Menski, Hindu Law Beyond Tradition and Modernity 491 (Oxford University Press
1t ed. 2003).

3Raghunanda v. BrozoKishoro, (1876) 1 Mad. 69.

4G. M. Diwekar, A Critical Commentary 56 (Hindu Law House 2d ed. 2002).

8
 But once the Karta dies, the position passes to the next senior-most male member; it may be
the uncle, or brother or son.

Junior Male Member:

By agreement between the coparceners, any junior male member can be made a by agreement
between the coparceners, any junior male member can be made a Karta. In this case,
withdrawal of the coparceners consent is allowed at any point of time.

Female Members as Karta:

Regarding the issue of female members of a family assuming Kartaship, there has been
considerable amount of discussion in the Supreme Court of India as well as the High Courts.
The Nagpur High court once held that though a mother is not a coparcener, she can be the
Karta in absence of male members. But the Supreme Court reversed the Nagpur High Courts
findings in another judgment and declared that no female member can assume Kartaship
whatsoever.

To put an end to this controversy, few States namely, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh & Karnataka
have amended their succession laws so that equal rights are provided to females as compared
to the males in the family.

More than one Karta

Two persons may look after the affairs of the family; 5 this authority is based not on any Hindi
laws but on the members of the family who confer this authority on them. The most
important qualification required to become a Karta is that the person should be a coparcener
in the family. With the consent of the others, a junior member of the family may become the

5Union of India v. Sri Ram Bohra,A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1531.

9
 manager of the family property or there can be more than one managing member.6 There
cannot be two kartas of a joint Hindi family but karta or members of the joint Hindi family
can by express or implied terms confer authority on a junior member to look after the affairs
of the joint Hindu family or its business and to take all necessary steps for the smooth and
beneficial management of the business and to protect the interest of such joint family
business.7

Minor as Karta

As regards, junior male members, as long as a senior member is present ther cannot become
Karta, unless all coparceners agree to the junior member occupying managerial position. This
was re-affirmed by the Narendra Kumar v. C.I.T..8if it turns out that a minor is the only on left
to be manager, he can as long as a capable guardian represents him. Section 21 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 recognises the competence of minors to occupy managerial
position in an undivided family.9

POSITION REGARDING PROPERTY

1. Immovable Property

If the family has immovable property or properties, he has the power to manage the same
by recovering rents, paying expenses by way of taxes, maintenance and carrying out

6Ibid.

7Nemi Chand v. Hira Chand, 2000 (1) H.L.R. 250 (Raj).

8Narendra Kumar v. C.I.T., A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1953.

9Sarda Prasad v. Umeshwar Prasad, (1963) Pat. 274.

10
 repairs.10 The karta can bring a suit for recovery of the joint family property on behalf of
the joint family members.11

Partition The power of the father of a joint family to divide family property at any time
during his life provided he gives his sons equal share with himself, is well established.
The consent of the sons is not necessary for the exercise of that power, the right of the
father to sever himself and the sons inter se being part of the partriaepotestasthat was
recognized by the Hindu law. If the partition is unequal and unfair it is open to the sons, if
they are manors, to repudiate the partition but in case they are minors, they can take
action only when they become majors. Till then partition remains valid.12

Alienation The karta or manager can alienate the coparcenery property by sale or
mortgage for legal necessity or benefit of the estate or otherwise. The Karta is not
required to obtain the consent of the other coparceners for alienation and if the alienation
is for legal necessity, it will bind the other coparceners. Any alienation made subsequent
to the relinquishment of the office will not bind the other coparceners. But an alienation
by the manager for no family purpose or necessity and made without the assent of the
others is void and a subsequent ratification by the other members cannot validate it.

When a junior member is allowed to deal with family properties as if he was the manager,
any alienation by him for family necessity is binding on all the members of the family,
including the real manager. Where the joint family property is alienated by the karta but
legal necessity is not proved, still the sale is binding on the undivided share of the karta. 13
The only reasonable limitation that can be imposed on the karta is that he must act with
prudence, and prudence implies caution as well as foresight and excludes hasty, reckless
and arbitrary conduct. The situation is to be assessed on the basis of the facts of the
situation. However, an alienation made for a grossly inadequate amoubt even if for a legal

10Bhowani v. Jagannath, (1909) 13 Cal. W.N. 309.

11GangadharRao v. Ganga Rao, A.I.R. 1968 A.P. 291.

12P. N. VenkatasubramaniaIyer v. P. N. EaswaraIyer, A.I.R. 1966 Mad. 266.

13Jawwala Singh v. Lachman Das, A.I.R. 1974 P. & H. 188.

11
 necessity cannot be held to be valid. But if legal necessity is proved, mere inadequacy of
consideration is no ground for setting aside the sale by the manager.14

It cannot be however said to be beneficial to a Hindu joint family for the manager to
purchase property for which the family is unable to pay and when the family is unable to
pay, it is certainly not for the benefit of the family that a liability should be cast upon the
joint family ancestral property. Alienation by the managing member of the family cannot
be said to be for legal necessity, if the legal remedy to recover the debt has become time
barred.

The alienee therefore has to prove one of the following two things:

1. the transaction was in fact justified by legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate.

2. he has made reasonable or bona fide enquiries as to the existence of the necessity and
satisfied himself that the manager was acting for the benefit of the estate.

Gifts It is competent for a father to make a gift of immovable property to a daughter if

the gift is of a reasonable extent having regard to the properties held by the family
because a Hindu father is under legal obligation to make a gift of a reasonable portion of
the family similar gift from a husband to his wife or from a father in law to his daughter
in law cannot be said to be for pios purposes. The position in Hindu law is that wheras the
father has the power to gift ancestral movable property within reasonable limits, he has no
such power regarding the immovable property except for pious purposes. Gifts of
coparcenery immovable15 or movable16 property to strangers are void.

2. Movable Property

The father has the power of making within reasonable limits gifts of ancestral moveable
property without the consent of his sons for the purpose of performing indispensable acts
of duty, and for purposes prescribed by texts of law, as gifts through affection, support of

14Dharma Singh v. Sadhu Singh, A.I.R. 1997 P. & H. 198.

15Gauramma v. Mallappa, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 510.

16GangadharAgarwal v. C.I.T., (1989) 162 I.T.R. 320 (Bom).

12
the family, relief from distress and so forth. A gift of affection may be made to a wife, a
daughter and even to a son.

13
 CHARACTERISTICS/POWERS

Kartas position is sui generis. His position/ office is independent and there is no comparable
office in any system in the world. Though, he acts on behalf of other members, he is not a
partner or agent.He manages all the affairs of the family and has widespread
powers.Ordinarily he is accountable to no one. The only exception to this rule is if charges of
misappropriation, fraud or conversion are levelled against him.He is not bound to save,
economise or invest. That is to say that he need not invest in land if the land prices are about
to shoot up, and hence miss out on opportunities etc. He has the power to use the resources as
he wishes, unless the above mentioned charges are levelled against him.He is not bound to
pay income of joint family in any fixed proportion to other members. This means that the
Karta need not divide the income generated from the joint family property equally among the
family members. He can discriminate one member from another and is not bound to treat
everyone impartially. Only responsibility is that he has to pay everyone something so that
they can avail themselves of the basic necessities such as food, clothing, shelter, education
etc.

Within joint family Karta has vast powers with limitations.

1. Power of management
He is the head of the family, his management powers are absolute. He may manage the family
affairs and family property and business the way he likes for the benefit of estate, no one can
question his management. The karta of the joint Hindu family is certainly the manager of the
joint family property but undoubtedly possesses powers which the ordinary manager does not
possess. The karta, therefore cannot be just equated with the manager of property.17

2. Right to Income
It is general rule that all members who works or do business out of joint family property
must hand over income to Karta. It is for Karta to allot funds to the members and look after
needs and requirements, so long as family remains joint, no member can ask for any specified
share in the income.

17Union of India v. Sri Ram Bohra, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1531.

14
3. Right to representation
He represent the family, represents the family in all matters, legal, social and religious. He
can enter into any transaction on behalf of the family, his acts are binding on the entire joint
family.

4. Power to compromise
He has power to compromise all disputes relating to family property or their management. He
can compromise pending suits, family debts, and other transactions. However if his act is not
bonafide can be challenged in a partition.

5. Power to refer a dispute to arbitration

Karta has power to refer any dispute to arbitration and Arbitrators award is binding on all the
members.

6. Power of acknowledgement and to contract debts

Karta has power to acknowledge on behalf of the family any debt due to the family, also has
power to pay debt or to make pack payment of debt.He has power to contract debts for the
family such debts incurred in the ordinary course of business are binding on entire joint
family.
Even Karta when takes loan or execute promissory note for family purpose or for family
business joint family is liable to pay such loan.

7. Power to enter into contract

Karta has power to enter into contract and such contract is enforceable against the family.

8. Power of alienation
Nobody in the family has power to alienate joint family property. However Karta has power
of alienation under 3 circumstances.
Legal necessity
Benefit of estate.
Indispensable duties

LIABILITIES

Karta has vast powers same time his position is fiduciary and has lot of responsibilities and
liabilities. Karta has to maintain all the members of the joint family properly. If there is any
shortfall in his maintenance, then any of the members can sue for maintenance. He is

15
 responsible for marriage of all the unmarried members in the family. Special emphasis is laid
with respect to daughters in this case. In case of any partition suit, the Karta has to prepare
accounts. He has to pay taxes on behalf of the family. Karta represents the family in all
matters including legal, religious and social matters.

1. Liable to maintain
Karta is responsible to maintain all the members of joint family. If he improperly excludes
any member from maintenance, he can be sued for maintenance and also arrears of
maintenance.

2. Liability to render accounts

As long as family remains joint, Karta is not supposed to keep accounts, but when partition
takes place at that time he is liable to account for family property. If any of the coparcener is
not satisfied with his account can institute a suit against Karta to discover the truth and to
know any misappropriation is made by Karta.

In the absence of any proof of misappropriation or fraudulent and improper conversion by the
manager of a joint family estate, he is liable to account on partition only for assets which he
has received, not for what he ought or might have received if the family money has been
profitable dealt with.18

3. Liability to recover debts due to the family

Kartas should realize all debts due to the family within reasonable time but should not allow
them to bar by limitation. He can acknowledge liability to pay debts due and payable by the
family, to give discharge for debt; to pay interest on money borrowed etc. due and payable by
the family. If the manager revives a time barred debt by passing a promissory note, he alone
is liable for the debt.

If a decree is passed against the karta or manager of the joint Hindu family in respect of a
liability properly incurred for the necessities of the family, the binding character of this

18Laxminarayanan v. Dinker, (1943) 3 Nag. 390.

16
 decree upon the interest of the other members depends, not upon their having or not having
been parties to the suit but on the authority of the manager to incur liability.19

Where the manager borrows money to save the family property and to remove the fear of
disturbance likely to be caused in the family business, the existence of necessity may be
presumed, where there is nothing to show that the lender acted otherwise than in good faith.20

A creditor advancing money to the manager must satisfy himself that the money was required
for family purposes. The necessity for a manager to borrow money confers upon him
authority to borrow upon reasonable commercial terms and no further.21

4. Liability to spend reasonably

As Karta of joint family has control over the income and expenditure of the family, he is
custodian of surplus income. However he should spend family funds reasonably and for the
purpose of the family.

5. Liability not to alienate coparcenary property

Unless it is for benefit of family, estate or for necessity Karta cannot alienate joint family
property without the consent of all the coparceners.

6. Liable not to start new business:

Unless adult coparceners of the family expressly or impliedly consents, Karta cannot impo

19(1907) 6 C.L.J. 362 (D.B.).

20A.I.R. 1920 Oudh 111.

21AcharyaShuklendra, Hindu Law 631 (Modern Law House 1t ed. 2002).

17
18
 CASE ANALYSIS

Some of the most recent cases involving the law regarding the rights and duties of the karta
of the Hindu Joint family have been analysed.
In ShankarlalLadha v. VasanthDeshmukh and Ors.,22it was held that the purchaser of the joint
Hindu family property is under obligation to discharge burden of proof to prove existence of
the legal necessity. It was also held that the marriage expenses of the male coparcener can be
regarded as incidents of legal necessity and mere vague recitals in the sale deed that it was for
purpose of improvement of agricultural lands would not be sufficient.
In Bhagyamma v. Ningaramma,23it has been held the rights and interests of the people
affected need to be taken into consideration by the alienee. A similar view was given in the
case of ChanumuriSubhaveni and Ors. V. SappaSrinivasaRao and Ors.24 Where it was held
that in case there was no pressing need for the payment of debts, the alienation made at a low
consideration, could not be said to be for legal necessity.

In DevKishan v. Ram Kishan, it was held that any property alienated for an unlawful purpose
cannot be termed as legal necessity. In this case the alienation had been made to carry out
child marriage.

In JAgdishParshad v. Laxmi Narayan and Ors.It was held that any suit instituted for an
injuction to restrain the karta from alienation property, was not maintainable. Further, it was
also held that legal necessity cannot remain static and it is for the karta to decide the
existence of legal necessity or use property as an act of good management. A similar ruling
was given in the case of KrishnamoorthyGounder v. SitaramaGounder and Ors.25These

22ShankarlalLadha v. VasanthDeshmukh and Ors.,2009 (111) Bom. L.R. 393.

23Bhagyamma v. Ningaramma, I.L.R 2009 Kar. 118.

24ChanumuriSubhaveni and Ors. V. SappaSrinivasaRao and Ors.,2004 (4) A.L.D. 745.

25KrishnamoorthyGounder v. SitaramaGounder and Ors, (2002) 3 M.L.J. 284.

19
decisions were based on the decision given by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar
v. Ram Prakash.26

In S. Rangaswamy v. A.P. Transco and Ors. 27,it was held that the karta would be individually
liable for any debts that he incurred after the partition of the property.

26Sunil Kumar v. Ram Prakash.A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 576.

27S. Rangaswamy v. A.P. Transco and Ors, 2002 (4) A.L.T. 108.,

20
 CONCLUSION

The concept of Karta in the Hindu joint family is not just a power but also serves a very
practical purpose. A Hindu joint family is a very complex entity and it is imperative that in
order that all the functions and duties are carried out conveniently, there be a centralizing
force, which is readily provided by the karta. Whether it is regarding the legal issues or
regarding property issues, the karta represents the entire joint family and this saves the
trouble of multiple claims of action. Centralization is the key to good management and this is
provided by the karta.

Along with numeruous powers, a lot of checks have also been imposed on the karta to
prevent any misuse or power. This ensures that the karta works for the benefit of the joint
Hindu family. Law has provided enough remedies to the members of the joint family to
protect their interest in case of any despotic behaviour by the karta.

21