1

● Under Mitakshara law, the Karta, typically the eldest male member, holds
significant responsibilities within a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Here's an
overview of their duties and liabilities, supported by case laws:
● Management of HUF Property: The Karta is entrusted with managing HUF
property, including its acquisition, maintenance, and disposal. In the case of
CIT vs. Padma Rao (1970), the Supreme Court held that the Karta has the
authority to alienate HUF property for legal necessity or family benefit.
● Debts and Liabilities: The Karta has the power to incur debts on behalf of the
HUF for family necessity or benefit. However, they are personally liable for
debts incurred for illegal or immoral purposes. In CIT vs. Dewan Bahadur R.N.
Malhotra (1964), the court emphasized that the Karta's authority to contract
debts is limited to those incurred for family benefit.
● Representation in Legal Matters: The Karta represents the HUF in legal
proceedings. In CIT vs. B.M. Kharwar (1969), the court held that the Karta's
actions bind the entire family in legal matters, provided they act within their
authority and for family benefit.
● Distribution of Income and Wealth: The Karta has the discretion to distribute
income and wealth among HUF members. However, this distribution must be
fair and for the benefit of all members. In CIT vs. S.H. Kharbade (1968), the
court held that the Karta's distribution of income and wealth should be based
on principles of justice and equity.
● Duty to Account: The Karta is obligated to maintain accurate accounts of HUF
income, expenses, and transactions. Failure to do so may result in legal
consequences. In CIT vs. S. Palaniappa Nadar (1971), the court emphasized
the importance of maintaining proper accounts by the Karta.

● In Mitakshara, a coparcener refers to an individual who inherits an interest in

the joint or ancestral property by birth. Self-acquired property within the
Mitakshara framework pertains to assets acquired through individual effort,
such as earnings, gifts, or inheritance from non-ancestral sources. The
treatment of self-acquired property within the Mitakshara system is distinct
from joint family property and entails specific rules and implications.
● Firstly, self-acquired property is considered the absolute ownership of the
coparcener who acquired it. Unlike ancestral property, self-acquired assets do
not fall under the coparcenary and are not subject to the rules of joint family
ownership. This means that a coparcener has the full right to dispose of or
deal with their self-acquired property as they see fit, without the need for
consent or approval from other coparceners.
 ● However, the treatment of self-acquired property can vary depending on
specific circumstances and regional customs. In some cases, self-acquired
property may be integrated into the joint family estate through actions like
commingling or voluntary contribution towards the joint family expenses. Such
integration may lead to the self-acquired property losing its distinct status and
becoming subject to the rules governing joint family assets.
● Moreover, in matters of inheritance, self-acquired property is typically not
subject to the rules of succession outlined for ancestral property. Instead, the
coparcener has the freedom to devise a testament or will to distribute their
self-acquired assets according to their wishes, ensuring greater flexibility and
autonomy in estate planning.
● Overall, the treatment of self-acquired property of a coparcener under
Mitakshara is characterized by its separate ownership, distinct from joint
family assets, and affords the coparcener significant autonomy and control
over its disposition and inheritance, subject to certain customary practices and
legal provisions.

3
Under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, coparcenary refers to joint ownership of
property among male descendants of a common ancestor. Coparceners enjoy
several rights, including the right to acquire, dispose of, and manage coparcenary
property, as well as the right to maintenance and residence in the ancestral home.

● Right to Property: Coparceners have an undivided interest in coparcenary

property, meaning they share ownership with other coparceners. This right
extends to both ancestral and self-acquired property.
● Right to Partition: Coparceners have the right to demand a partition of the
coparcenary property, leading to the division of their respective shares. The
Supreme Court in the case of Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) upheld the
coparcener's right to partition, irrespective of whether the coparcener is alive
or deceased at the time of seeking partition.
● Right to Management: Coparceners have the right to participate in the
management and administration of coparcenary property, including
decision-making regarding its use, lease, or sale.
● Right to Alienation: Coparceners have the right to alienate their share in
coparcenary property through sale, gift, or will, subject to certain limitations.
The Supreme Court in Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar (1997) held that
coparceners have the right to alienate their undivided interest in coparcenary
property to a stranger.
● Right to Maintenance: Coparceners have the right to claim maintenance from
the family estate if they are unable to maintain themselves. The Supreme
Court in the case of Shyama Devi v. Manju Shukla (2015) affirmed that
coparceners are entitled to maintenance from ancestral property.
4
Here are the different classifications of property under the Mitakshara joint family:

● Joint Family Property (JFP): Joint family property consists of assets acquired
by the joint family through ancestral inheritance, partition, or self-acquisition
using joint family funds. It is owned collectively by all members of the joint
family and is governed by specific rules of succession.
● Ancestral Property: Ancestral property refers to the assets inherited from
paternal ancestors, including land, buildings, and other assets passed down
through generations. It is considered the core of joint family property and is
subject to common ownership among male descendants.
● Self-acquired Property: Self-acquired property is assets acquired by a
coparcener through means other than inheritance or partition. Unlike ancestral
property, self-acquired property is owned individually by the coparcener who
acquired it, but it may eventually become joint family property if it is thrown
into the common stock with the intention of benefiting the joint family.
● Impartible Property: Impartible property refers to assets that cannot be divided
or partitioned among the coparceners. This type of property typically includes
titles, honors, and certain hereditary offices. Impartible property is managed
by the head of the joint family and is passed down to the next heir according
to specific rules of succession.
● Stridhan: Stridhan refers to the property gifted or inherited by female
members of the joint family, including jewelry, cash, and movable assets.
Unlike other forms of property, stridhan is owned exclusively by the female
recipient and is not subject to partition or common ownership within the joint
family.
● Coplarcenary Property: Coparcenary property includes ancestral property,
joint family property, and property acquired through a partition of ancestral
property. It is owned by all male descendants of a common ancestor and is
subject to the right of survivorship.
● HUF Property: Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property includes all assets
held by the joint family, including ancestral property, self-acquired property,
and income generated from these assets. HUF property is managed by the
karta (head) of the family and is subject to specific tax benefits and
regulations under Indian tax law.

● Under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, the right of maintenance for
coparceners is a crucial aspect governed by certain principles and provisions.
In Mitakshara coparcenary, all male descendants up to four generations from
 the common ancestor hold joint ownership of ancestral property. This system
outlines specific rights and obligations, including the right to maintenance.
● The right of maintenance for coparceners is primarily derived from their status
as members of the joint Hindu family. It ensures that coparceners, especially
females and dependent relatives, are provided for from the income or property
of the joint family. This right stems from the duty of the head of the family to
maintain all dependent members.
● The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, significantly amended the rights of
coparceners, particularly by granting daughters equal rights in the ancestral
property. However, the Mitakshara principles regarding maintenance remain
relevant.
● Maintenance under Mitakshara is contingent upon certain conditions. Firstly,
the coparcener seeking maintenance must establish their dependency on the
joint family property or income. This dependency can arise due to various
reasons such as old age, disability, or lack of personal resources.
● Secondly, the right to maintenance is subject to the availability of income or
property within the joint family. The coparcener's claim cannot exceed the
resources of the family, and the extent of maintenance depends on factors like
the coparcener's position in the family and the family's financial capacity.
● Furthermore, the right to maintenance is not absolute and may be limited by
customs, agreements, or specific circumstances of the family. In cases where
the joint family faces financial constraints, the allocation of maintenance may
be adjusted accordingly

Under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, coparceners are entitled to maintenance
rights, which are governed by certain principles:

● Joint Family Obligation: Coparceners have a right to be maintained out of the

joint family estate. This obligation arises from the joint family structure where
all members, including coparceners, share a common ancestral property.
● Equality among Coparceners: Maintenance rights are not exclusive to specific
coparceners but are available to all members of the joint family on an equal
basis. Each coparcener is entitled to maintenance according to their position
and needs within the family.
● Maintenance for Dependents: Coparceners who are dependents, such as
minors, unmarried daughters, or widowed daughters-in-law, have a right to
maintenance from the joint family estate. This ensures their basic needs are
met even if they do not possess separate property.
 ● Maintenance for Senior Members: Senior members of the family, such as
elderly parents or grandparents, are entitled to maintenance from the joint
family property. This obligation reflects the cultural value of respecting and
caring for elders within the family structure.
● Nature of Maintenance: Maintenance under Mitakshara is not limited to mere
subsistence but extends to providing for the reasonable needs and expenses
of the coparcener. It includes food, clothing, residence, medical expenses,
and other essential requirements for a decent standard of living.
● Right to Reside: Coparceners have the right to reside in the ancestral home or
joint family property, and this right is often intertwined with their maintenance
entitlement. This ensures their shelter needs are met within the familial
context.
● Duty of Karta: The Karta, the head of the joint family, holds the responsibility
to manage the joint family property and ensure that maintenance is provided
to all coparceners who are entitled to it. Failure to fulfill this duty may lead to
legal consequences.

Under Mitakshara, a legal doctrine in Hindu law, the joint family is a cornerstone
institution. Rooted in tradition, it embodies familial solidarity, cohesion, and shared
responsibilities. In a joint family, multiple generations coexist under one roof, bound
by blood ties, religious beliefs, customs, and commonly held property. The eldest
male member, typically the Karta, assumes the role of authority, overseeing the
family's affairs and property management. Joint families foster interdependence,
mutual support, and the preservation of lineage and heritage. They provide a social
safety net, ensuring care for the elderly, education for the young, and collective
decision-making. Moreover, joint families serve as economic units, pooling resources
for the common good and enhancing financial stability. Despite their enduring
cultural significance, the prevalence of joint families has diminished in modern times
due to urbanization, changing social norms, and economic factors, leading to the rise
of nuclear family structures. However, the ethos of unity and cooperation inherent in
joint families continues to influence familial relationships and societal values in
contemporary India.

Under the Mitakshara system of Hindu law, a coparcener refers to a male member of
a joint Hindu family who acquires an interest in the joint or coparcenary property by
birth. This system is prevalent in India and governs matters of inheritance and
succession among Hindus.
In the Mitakshara coparcenary, the principle of survivorship is paramount, meaning
upon the death of a coparcener, his share automatically devolves upon the surviving
coparceners. However, a coparcener has the right to seek partition of the joint family
property, thereby ending the joint status and converting his share into separate
property.

Traditionally, only male descendants up to four generations down the male line were
considered coparceners. However, with legal reforms, daughters are now also
coparceners by birth and have equal rights with sons in the coparcenary property.

The Mitakshara coparcenary system fosters the concept of joint family ownership
and aims to ensure the preservation and management of family property for the
benefit of all members. It is governed by both customary practices and statutory
laws, with changes over time to accommodate societal shifts towards gender
equality and individual property rights.

In traditional Hindu law, the concept of "karta" refers to the head or manager of a
Hindu joint family. Historically, this role has been exclusively reserved for males due
to the patriarchal nature of the society. The karta is typically the eldest male member
of the family, usually the father or grandfather, who has the authority to manage the
family's affairs, including finances, property, and rituals.

However, with changing societal norms and legal reforms, the role of karta is no
longer strictly limited to males. In 2005, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act was
enacted in India, granting daughters equal rights as sons in ancestral property. This
legal reform effectively opened up the possibility for females to become kartas in
certain circumstances.

While the law now allows females to inherit ancestral property on par with males, the
practical application of a female assuming the role of karta may still face resistance
in some conservative families and communities. Cultural norms and traditions may
still influence the acceptance of a female karta, especially in more traditional or
patriarchal families.

Overall, while there is legal recognition for females to be kartas under certain
conditions, societal acceptance and implementation may vary, and it may take time
for broader acceptance of females in this role to become more widespread.