THE EVOLUTION OF FEMALE KARTA IN THE LIGHT OF THE CASE OF SUJATA SHARMA V.

MANU GUPTA

Atika Chaturvedi*

ABSTRACT

In the course of many years, property rights of women have been subjected to a lot of
challenges and hurdles. Albeit more than a decade has passed since the monumental the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 came into being, women were overlooked when it came to
being the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family. Upholding the Hindu Undivided Family as a notion
1
based on customs and traditions, it contributed to the sufferings of women. What astonished many is
the fact that even six years after our Constitution came into being, another piece of legislation could
be that backward when it came to ascertaining the roles of women. Regardless of the fact that Article
14 of the Constitution of India guaranteed the Right to Equality to one and all, a mere statute by its
virtue seized that very right away from women. The centuries of patriarchy was reflected in the
mindset of various people who felt that through this new Act, women can be included in the Hindu
Undivided Family only as Coparceners, but, still, had no authority to ever be recognised as the Karta.
The female child being the eldest will, in no way, make any difference. They could only partake in
inheritance, but not in management of the property.

2
The revolutionary case of Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta paved way for a fresher look at the
roles of women in the Hindu Undivided Family. The issue in question revolved around the realm of the
term Karta. Relating to pinddaan, proprietary rights, pious obligation, etc. the Karta holds to be a
3
socio-religious position . The power of the Karta of the HUF transcends beyond the powers of an
4
ordinary manager , as the Karta is not only the manager of the property, but is also the manager of
5
the joint family . Thus, it would extend the power of the Karta to include social and religious duties
6
and only that person is allowed and obliged to perform it for the rest .

This case saw the establishment of a new term “Female Karta”, indicating the progressive
stance of allowing the elder most, be it a female, be the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family.
Attributing the same rights and obligations to a woman as applicable to a man, this case erased the
confusion when it came to the Coparcenary system and clarified the position of Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Furthermore, it provided that the right of inheritance and
management of property of women is not transformed by the virtue of her marriage. This paper aims

*
Second year Student at National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi.
1
Dr. Neeta Beril, Delhi High Court Landmark Judgment opened the doors for Women to be Karta of a HUF, 3(2) International
Journal of Law and Legal Jurisprudence Studies 131 (2016).
2
Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 506.
3
Shiv Ranjan, Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta, ILI Law Review 193 (2016)
4
Union of India v. Shree Ram Bohra, (1965) 2 SCR 830.
5
Sir DinshawFardunji Mulla, Hindu Law 324 (LexisNexis, Noida, 21sted., 2010)
6
Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills,(1965) 3 SCR 488.

Published in Article section of www.manupatra.com

to shed some light upon the evolution of Female Karta by the virtue of this case which lead to an
unconventional turn of events in the matters of management of property and succession.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Before the monumental Amendment Act was passed in 2005, the condition of women in the country,
especially widow daughters, was miserable. Daughters could not form a part of their father’s family as
coparceners. They were considered to be only members of the family and, even ceased to be so on
their marriage. The Hindu Undivided Family is a notion stemming from ethos and traditions. It allowed
only male heirs to participate in it and be recognised as coparceners. However, this concept was met
with a revolutionary change through the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005. This Act,
following the progressive wave resonating throughout the society, attributed daughters with equal
rights as those of sons, and erased the inequality that was prevailing for decades. Daughters now
shared the same degree of rights and obligation as that of sons in the family property. The
Amendment Act of 2005, however, as a result dug up many questions which need to be properly
resolved. One such pertaining and persistent question was- Could there be Female Kartas?The
answer to this questions lies in the case of Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta, wherein the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court has, without an ounce of reluctance, ruled in favour of the reformist view and held that if
the elder most child of a Hindu Undivided Family is a female, then she has every right to be the Karta
of that family.

The facts of the case were that the plaintiff and the defendant were descendants of late Mr. D.R.
Gupta, who had constituted D.R. Gupta and Sons, a Hindu Undivided Family. This HUF came into
th
existence on January 5 , 1963 and has been in existence ever since. An affidavit of late Mr. D.R.
Gupta confirmed the same, stating that all his immovable and movable properties will belong to the
st
HUF. Mr. D.R. Gupta expired on October 1 , 1971 and, consequently, the eldest living coparcener
took over the position of Karta. Thereafter, the death of 5 subsequent sons, the last Karta expiring in
2006,lead to the situation at hand.

The plaintiff, being a female, was the elder most child of the eldest son of Mr. D.R. Gupta. The
question of her being the Karta as she was the oldest coparcener was put forth before the family
members for discussion, wherein some of the defendants opposed it. Other defendants had furnished
her with “No Objection” certificates for the same. Furthermore, the plaintiff discovered that the
defendant, who is ten years younger than him, had sent a letter to the Defence Estate Office claiming
to be the Karta of the HUF. The plaintiff filed the suit question the legal character of the claim and
asserting herself to be the Karta of the HUF.

CONTROVERSIES RAISED

The case of Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta could be considered to be a landmark one for various
reasons. The issues it involved acted as a direct challenge to the patriarchy that has been reigning in
the country for centuries. One of the issues that shook the foundation of traditions as we know in India

Published in Article section of www.manupatra.com

are-Whether the plaintiff can be regarded as an vital part of the Hindu Undivided Family,
predominantly after her marriage? And the other was- Whether the plaintiff is a coparcener and legally
designated to be the Karta?

ARGUMENTS BY THE PLAINTIFF

Whilst dealing with the fact that the father of the plaintiff passed away before the amendment was
enforced and the absence of testamentary succession in her favour as she would not possess any
right into the coparcenary, the counsel for the plaintiff vehemently contended that had the survivor of
the plaintiff’s father been a male then he would have right a right in the coparcenary. By virtue of
Section 6 of the Amendment Act, the rights and obligations guaranteed to both male and female
children were the same. Hence, the lack of testamentary succession in favour of the plaintiff does not
negate her from being a coparcener.

The second issue stood to be the most significant and controversial one in the case. The counsel
for the plaintiff asserted that by the virtue of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005, all rights
that were available to a Hindu Male were made available to a Hindu Female. By relying upon Section
6of the Amendment Act of 2005, which deals with the various facets of a daughter of a coparcener
becoming a coparcener by birth, and situating her in the same position of that of a son, attributing her
with equal rights and obligations, it was submitted by the counsel that a daughter is now regarded as
a coparcener by birth in her own right and is entitled to the same rights in the joint family property as
7
the son. The case of Tribhovan Das HaribhaiTamboli v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and Ors . was also
mentioned, wherein it was held that the senior most member in the Hindu Undivided Family would be
entitled to be the Karta. Another reliance was placed on Raghunath Rai Bareja and Another v. Punjab
8
National Bank and Ors , where it was contended that Section 6 of the Amendment Act of 2005 covers
within its ambit all facets of inheritance, including the right to manage a property or a ritual as its
9 th 10
Karta. The 174 Report of the Law Commission of India , the counsel argued, states that there is no
reason behind depriving a female Hindu of the right and opportunity of managing a HUF as its Karta.

ARGUMENTS BY THE DEFENDANTS

The defendants, on the other hand, held a divided front. The counsel of defendant Nos. 10 and 11,
submitting in favour of the claim of the plaintiff, contended that the stipulation made in Section 6(1) of
11
the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 is comprehensible and does not demand further interpretation. It
follows that any reference made to the Hindu Mitakshara law would be appropriated to include
daughters in the coparcenary, and no other stance in terms of succession is permissible in the light of

7
Tribhovan Das HaribhaiTamboli v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and Ors,AIR 1991 SC 1538.
8
Raghunath Rai Bareja and Another v. Punjab National Bank and Ors, (2007) 2 SCC 230.
9
Shivani Singhal, Women as Coparceners: Ramifications of the Amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, 19
Student Bar Review 45 (2007).
10
174thLAW COMMISSION OF INDIA REPORT, PROPERTY RIGHTS OF WOMEN: PROPOSED REFORMS UNDER THE HINDU LAW (2000),
http://www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/kerala.htm.
11
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, §6, cl. 1.

Published in Article section of www.manupatra.com

 12
the overriding effect as per Section 4 . It was further asserted by the counsel that this was a mode
through which the legislature has conferred a substantive right in favour of the daughters. Section 6
has paved way for equal rights being attributed to both male and female children. Now, the daughter
of the coparcener will have the same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as she would,
13
had she been a son. Attention was also drawn by the counsel to Section 29(a) of, which is
parimateria to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 1956. Through this it can be
deduced that the right of the senior most male member of the coparcenary widens to include the
female members as well. Accordingly, in the instant case, as the plaintiff is the senior most member of
the HUF, her being a female cannot be taken as a disqualification from being the Karta, as this
disqualification was eliminated by the virtue of the Amendment Act of 2005. The counsel further
supported his claim by highlighting the objects and the reason of the Hindu Succession (Amendment)
Act of 2005. Not only this, the counsel also sought support from the Constitution of India, specifically
through Articles 14, 15 and 16 and Directive Principles of State Policy.

The counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 maintained that Section 6 of the Amendment Act of
2005 specifies rights with respect to inheritance of property only and not its management. As the right
of management has not been particularly conferred upon a female Hindu, customary practices would
have to be been examined to ascertain that. Following the same trail of claim, the counsel argued that
when taken in conformity with the Objective of the Act, Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act,
14
1956, deals with the inheritance of a remarried widow and Section 14 vests with a female Hindu to
have an absolute undeniable right in the property possessed by her before or after the
commencement of the Act. Thus, the Act never aimed at extending the right of a female coparcener to
the management of HUF. The management of HUF, according to the ancient Hindu Texts, vests in
the senior most male member of the coparcener.

JUDGMENT

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in the judgment, expressed its astonishment at the rather peculiar
proposition that female would enjoy equality when it comes to inheritance but not management.

Concurring majorly with the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 10 and 11, the Court ruled in favour of
the plaintiff. The interpretation of Section 6 of the Amendment Act of 2005, made by the counsels of
the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 10 and 11 was reasonable and scrupulous. The Court regarded
it as correct. It felt that, indeed, the language of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act
of 2005 does not warrant any ambiguity. It does not curtail the rights of female Hindu in any form. It
was observed by the Court that the impediment which barred a female member from becoming the
Karta of a HUF was her lack of possession of the necessary qualification of coparcener ship. Section
6 of the Amendment Act is a progressive piece of legislation striving to create equality in the Indian
society. The objective of the Section is to acknowledge the rights of female Hindu as coparceners and

12
Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, §4.
13
Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986, §29 cl. (a).
14
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, §24.

Published in Article section of www.manupatra.com

to enhance their right to equality in terms of succession. Since the disqualification is removed, by
virtue of the Amendment Act of 2005, the eldest member of the HUF, regardless of them being a male
or a female, would be the Karta of the HUF. Thus, if a male member could become the Karta, then so
15
can the female member Saying that the Act did not strive to extend the right of a female coparcener
to the management of the Hindu Undivided Family would be highly incorrect and not at all at par with
equality as envisaged by the Constitution of India.

CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy form some of the core components of the
Constitution of India, without which it be unfinished and inadequate. Fundamental Rights are those
rights which are guaranteed to all citizens, whereas, Directive Principle of State Policy are those
which aim at creating economic and social conditions under which the citizens could lead a good life.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, indicated towards a very biased and restricted status of women in
the Indian society. It severely contradicted the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

However, the new act brought a new ray of hope. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005
upheld not only Article 14, but also Articles 15 and 16 as well as Directive Principles of State Policy to
some extent. Only wider and progressive interpretation of the Act was in consonance with equality as
enshrined in the Constitution. Unfortunately, many failed to interpret it in the light of quality, as
guaranteed by the Constitution. Albeit that was a sorry state of affairs, through the judgment rendered
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the present case, the perplexity with regards to the interpretation
of the Amendment Act was erased. Now, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 was truly at
par with the principles laid down in the Constitution of India.

AUTHOR’S VIEW

This case ascertained to be one of the momentous development in a society which hailed equality.
The right to ownership and management of property might seem so essential that it can go without
saying, yet it was beyond of the reach of a segment of the Hindu society. Not only was it made a
completely male dominant attribute, but it also rendered females to be completely defenceless and
dependent on males. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act was brought to improve the prevailing
condition of Hindu females, but unfortunately, like most of the things, it was given an interpretation
which favoured the males and not the segment for which it was introduced. But what could an act,
regardless how it was intended to be a progressive piece of legislation to ensure social justice, can do
when its interpretation is so narrow it completely overlooked the objective behind passing of that very
act?

However, the Courts, being the guardian of our rights, came to the rescue of countless Hindu females
who still had to face the unreasonableness and injustice associated with the elucidation. It purported a
change where the injustice was erased and everyone could be equal with equal opportunities. By

15
Abhinav Garg, Woman can be ‘karta’of a family: Delhi high court, THETIMES OF INDIA (May 10, 2020, 5:45
PM)https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Woman-can-be-kartaof-a-family-Delhi-high-court/articleshow/50799462.cms

Published in Article section of www.manupatra.com

passing of this judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi ensured that women, in this case precisely
Hindu women, were not held back anymore. It erased the bounds which the Hindu Females had been
subject to for years, and allowed them to be equal to males, not only on papers, but in real life too.
The judgment in this case deserved to be hailed by any and every person who is a firm believer of
equality.

Published in Article section of www.manupatra.com