FAMILY LAW

PSDA
SUJATA SHARMA v. MANU GUPTA
CASE ANALYSIS

BY SIDDHI MISHRA
BBA LLB [B]
08751103520
FACTS

• The late shri D.R. Gupta had constituted a joint Hindu family known the D.R.
Gupta and Sons, HUF. The same HUF has been in existence since 5th of
January,1963 the same was stated in his affidavit of the same date wherein he has
also mentioned that all his movable and immovable property will belong to HUF.
• D.R. Gupta expired on the 1st of October 1971 and was having decedents the
plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 4, 6, 7, 9-11,12A, 14, and 16. As the death of D.R.
Gupta took place the eldest living coparcener took over the HUF. He had 5 sons
• The case arose after the death of D.R. Gupta’s 5 son died which was followed by
the death of the Karta of HUF in 2006.
• The plaintiff Sujata was born in 1946 and was the daughter of the Eldest son of late
shri D.R. Gupta. She with other members of the family discussed as to who ought
to be the next Karta Of the HUF
 . It was proposed by the plaintiff that as she was the oldest coparcener in the
family, she should attain the position of Karta. However, the same idea
opposed by defendant nos. 1 to 5, 10 and 11 and rest of the defends that is
Defendant nos. 6 to 9, 12, 12A, 14, 15, 16 and 17 had given No Objection.
• As per plaintiff, she came to be aware of the fact that defendant no. 1, who is
ten years younger than the plaintiff, sent a letter to the Defence Estate Officer
projecting himself as the Karta of the D.R. Gupta & Sons HUF. The legal
character of the plaintiff as the oldest coparcener and possible Karta was
clouded and the plaintiff thus filed the present suit for declaration that she is
the Karta of the HUF.
ISSUE RAISED
•Whether the daughter can be a Karta
•Whether the interest of the plaintiff separated upon the demise of her father Sh. K.M.
Gupta in 1984?
• Assuming existence of D.R. Gupta and Sons HUF, whether the plaintiff is a
coparcener of HUF and legally entitled to be the Karta?
 whether the daughter can be a Karta

• The suit out of which this civil revision has arisen had been filed in the year
2006 much after coming into force of the Hindu Succession (Amendment)
Act, 2005 which substituted Section 6 of the Act and provided that in a joint
Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law the daughter of a coparcener shall
by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son
and will have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have
if she had been a son and shall also be subject to the same liabilities in
respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son and any reference to
a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a
daughter of a coparcener. In the said circumstances, the law is made very
clear that the term "Hindu Mitakshara coparcener" used in the original Hindu
Law shall now include daughter of a coparcener also giving her the same
rights and liabilities by birth as those of the son."
 Whether the interest of the plaintiff separated upon
the demise of her father Sh. K.M. Gupta in 1984?

• Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession

(Amendment) Act, 2005*, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family
governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate
succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the
coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had
taken place and,
a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;
b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have
got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving
child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and
c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre- deceased son or of a pre-deceased
daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the
partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-
deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.
Assuming existence of D.R. Gupta and Sons HUF, whether
the plaintiff is a coparcener of HUF and is legally entitled to
be the Karta?

• It was held as the plaintiff relies upon the case of Raghunath Rai Bareja and
Another vs. Punjab National Bank and Others (2207) 2 SCC 230 which held that,
under the Dayabhaga School of Law, an unborn son cannot have a right in the
property because the said son cannot perform Shradha whereas, under the
Mitakshara School of Law, an unborn son in the womb of his mother gets a share in
the ancestral property. The rights of an unborn son in the mother's womb under
the Dayabhaga School of Law are premised on the ability of the child to offer a rice
ball or to conduct such necessary rituals for the benefit of the departed souls of his
ancestors. It is contended that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act extends this
element of consanguinity to female coparceners of a HUF under the Mitakshara
School of Law to all aspects of inheritance, which would include the right to
manage a ritual or property as its Karta, being the eldest of the co- parceners.