Chanakya National Law University, Patna

Family law -IIProject on

Is there any need to redefine the qualification, power and
position of karta ?

Submitted To: Mr. ShewalSatrayrthi

Submitted by SukirtiShikha

(Faculty for family law )

Roll No : 823
Semester : 4TH

Acknowledgment
The present project has been able to get its final shape with the support and help of people
from various quarters. My sincere thanks go to all the members without whom the study
could not have come to its present state. I am proud to acknowledge gratitude to the
individuals during my study and without whom the study may not be completed. I have taken
this opportunity to thank those who genuinely helped me.

With immense pleasure, I express my deepest sense of gratitude to Mrs. ShewalSatrarythi,

Faculty for family law, Chanakya National Law University for helping me in my project. I
am also thankful to the whole Chanakya National Law University family that provided me all
the material I required for the project. Not to forget thanking to my parents without the cooperation of which completion of this project would not had been possible.
I have made every effort to acknowledge credits, but I apologies in advance for any omission
that may have inadvertently taken place.
Last but not least I would like to thank Almighty whose blessing helped me to complete the
project.

Contents
1. Introduction
2. Position of Karta
3. Rights and Powers of karta
4. Need to redefine position of karta
5. Conclusion
6. Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

A Hindu joint family consists of the common ancestor and all his lineal male descendants
upto any generation together with the wife/ wives (or widows) and unmarried daughters of
the common ancestor and of the lineal male descendants. Whatever the skeptic may say about
the future of the Hindu joint family, it has been and is still the fundamental aspect of the life
of Hindus.
A co-parcenery is a narrow body of persons within a joint family. It exclusively consists of
male members. A Hindu coparcenery is a corporate entity, though not incorporated. A
coparcenery consists of four successive generations including the last male holder of the
property. The last male holder of the property is the senior most member of the family.
In the entire Hindu joint family, the karta or manager (the English word manager is wholly
inadequate in understanding his unique position) occupies a very important position. Karta is
the eldest male member of the family. He is the Hindu patriarch. Only a coparcener can
become Karta. Such unique is his position that there is no office or any institution or any
other system of the world, which can be compared with it. His position is sui generis i.e. of
his own kind or peculiar to himself. Peculiarity lies in the fact that in terms of his
share/interest, the Karta is not superior and has no superior interests in the coparcenery. If
partition takes place he is entitled to take his share. He is a person with limited powers, but,
within the ambit of his sphere, he possesses such vast powers as are possessed by none else.
His position is recognized /conferred by law. No stranger can ever be qualified to be a karta,
but an adopted son who is the eldest in the family can be qualified.1
Manager - Property belonging to a joint family is ordinarily managed by the father or other
senior member for the time being of the family: The Manager of a joint family is called
Karta.2
In a HUF, the responsibility of Karta is to manage the HUF property. He is the custodian of
the income and assets of the HUF. He is liable to make good to other family members with
their shares of all sums which he has misappropriated or which he spent for purposes other
than those in which the joint family was interested. His role is crucial. He is entrusted not
only with the management of land/assets of the family but also is entrusted to do the general
welfare of the family.
His position is different from the manager of a company or a partnership. The reason behind
it is that though the coparcenery deals with lands, assets/property but in an entirely different
fashion. When a Karta is bestowed with such a position it is something, which takes place
under the operation of law.

1. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/karta_hsa.htm
2. Article 236 of the Mulla Hindu Law

Concept of Karta in Hindu Joint Family

In 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.

TheseniormostmalememberoftheHindujointfamilyisusuallytheKartaorheadofthefamily.Of
tenKartaiscalledManagerofthejointfamily,thisiswhenthereexistsafamilybusinessorifitisatr
adingfamily,therehastobeamanagero
take
care
oftheproperfunctioningandsupervisionofthebusiness.TheKartahasinnumerablerightsandp
owers.Hecanexercisetheserightsinanymannerhethinksfit
aslongasitsforthegreatergoodofthefamily.Alongwithsuchgreat
powerhehasanumberofliabilitiessuchasmaintenanceoffamilymembersandkeepingpropera
ccounts.Themanagerofthejointfamilyiscalledthekarta. 3
TheseniormostmembermalememberofajointHindufamilyisconsideredasthekartaofthefamil
yprovidedheisotherwisefittoactassuchthatheisnot
sufferingfromanyphysicalor
mentaldeficiency. 4Heisnotanagentortruseeofthefamilybutastheheadofthefamilyheisthecus
todianorguardianofthepropertyandaffairsofthefamilyandoftheinterestofthefamily. 5
ThekartaofthejointHindufamilyiscertainlythemanagerofthejointfamilypropertybutundou
btedlypossessespowerswhichtheordinary
managerdoesnotpossess.Thekarta,therefore,cannotbejustequatedwith
themanagerofproperty. 4 Thepositionofakartawhichisacquiredbybirth
andregulatedbyseniority,

subjecttohiscapacity

to

act,isterminableeitherbyresignationorrelinquishmentandisnotindefeasible. 7

5.

3.

SurajBansiKoerv.SheoParsad(1880)5Cal148.

4.

G.M.Diwekar,HinduLaw-ACriticalCommentary56(HinduLawHouse2nded.2002).

Ibid,p.57.
6.

UnionofIndiav.SriRamBohra,MANU/SC/0004/1965:AIR1965SC1531.

7.

RanganathMisraandVijenderKumar,(rev.),Mayne,TreatiseonHinduLawandUsage,16thed;2008,p.759.

Twopersonsmaylookaftertheaffairsofthefamily8 ;thisauthorityisbasednotonanyHindulaws
butonthemembersofthefamilywhoconferthisauthorityonthem.

Themostimportantqualificationrequired tobecome a Karta isthatthepersonshouldbe a

coparcenerinthefamily.Withtheconsentoftheothers,ajuniormemberofthefamilymaybecomet
hemanagerofthefamilyproperty
orthere
canbemore
9
thanonemanagingmember. TherecannotbetwokartasofajointHindufamilybutkartaormemb
ersofthejointHindufamilycanbyexpressorimpliedtermsconferauthorityonajuniormemberto
lookaftertheaffairsofthejointHindufamilyoritsbusinessandtotakeallnecessarystepsforthesm
oothandbeneficialmanagementof
thebusinessandto
10
protecttheinterestofsuchjointfamilybusiness.

8.UnionofIndiav.ShriramMANU/SC/0004/1965:AIR1965SC1531
9.Ibid.
10.

NemiChandv.HiraChand,2000(1)HLR250(Raj).

Who can be Karta

Senior-most Male Member:

The senior-most male member of the family is entitled to this position and it is his right. 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.But
once the Karta dies, the position passes to the next senior-most male member; it may be the
uncle, or brother or son.
JandhayalaSreeamma
v.
Krishnavenamma 11AIR
1957
A.P.434
In the case of Hindu Joint Family a suit to set aside on alienation filed by the younger of the
two brothers within three years of his attaining majority would be barred by limitation if the
elder brother, who was the manager and an adult has failed to sue within three years of his
attaining majority.
The senior most male member is Karta by virtue of the fact that he is senior most male
member. He does not owe his position to agreement or consent of other coparceners. So long
as he is alive, may be aged, infirm, or ailing, he will continue to be Karta. Even a leper may
continue to be the Karta1. However, in cases of insanity or any other disqualifications, the
next senior male member generally takes over the Kartaship. Once this is done the former
will cease to be a karta.
So long as the father is alive, he is the karta. After his death it passes to the senior most male
member, who may be the uncle, if coparcenery consists of uncles and nephews, or who may
be the eldest brother, if coparcenery consists of brothers.

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.

11. http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Concept-of-Karta-in-Joint-Hindu-Family-4678.asp#.U1TbVfmSyRQ

Narendrakumar
J
Modi
v.
CIT
1976
S.C.
1953
Facts: - BaplalPurushottamdasModi was the head of the HUF. Joint family possesses many

immovable properties and carried business of various types such as money lending, etc. He
executed a general power of attorney in favor of his 3rd son, Gulabchand on Oct 5, 1948. On
Oct 22, 1954 Baplal relinquished his share. On Oct 24, 1954 the existing members of the
family executed a memo of partition. However, the order accepting partition was not passed,
the contention of the appellant was that Gulabchand couldnt be a karta because he is a junior
member and other members of the family did not accept him as a karta.
Judgment: - It was held that Gulabchand was given the power to manage by Baplal because
Gulabchands elder brother was an aged man of 70 years. And also the father of appellant
died in 1957. So, under such circumstances, Gulabchand appears to have acted as the Karta
with the consent of all the other members and hence the appeal was dismissed.

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.12

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Seth Govind Ram AIR 1966 S.C. 2

After reviving the authorities it was held that the mother or any other female could not be the
Karta of the Joint Family. According to the Hindu sages, only a coparcener can be a karta and
since females cannot be coparceners, they cannot be the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family.
The above views seem to be rigid. Rigidity in law is a fatal flaw. Since it is depended upon an
ill directed question whether the transferor was a coparcener.
The above views seem to be rigid. Rigidity in law is a fatal flaw. Since it is depended upon an
ill directed question whether the transferor was a coparcener.
Dharmashastra is one and only sure guide. According to Dharmashastras, in absence of male
members female members can act as karta, or in case where male members if present are
minors, she can act as karta.

12.http://www.financialexpress.com/news/a-female-can-become-karta-of-huf/85243

Position of Karta

The position of karta is sui generis. The relationship between him and other members are not
that of principal/agent/partners. He is not like a manger of a commercial firm. Needless to say
he is the head of the family and acts on behalf of other members, but he is not like a partner,
as his powers are almost unlimited. Undoubtedly, he is the master of the grand show of the
joint family and manages all its affairs and its business. His power of management is so wide
and almost sovereign that any manager of business firm pales into insignificance. The karta
stands in a fiduciary relationship with the other members but he is not a trustee.
# Ordinarily a Karta is accountable to none. Unless charges of fraud,misrepresentation or
conversion are levelled against him. He is the master and none can question as to what he
received and what he spent. He is not bound for positive failures such as failure to invest, to
prepare accounts, to save money.
# Karta may discriminate i.e. he is not bound to treat all members impartially. He is not
bound to pay income in a fixed proportion to other members. Even if he enters such an
agreement /arrangement, he can repudiate the same with impunity.
PositionOfTheKarta

Itisthedutyofthekartatoseethatallreasonablewantsofthemembersaresatisfied.I
fthekartafailstofulfillhisduty,thememberscouldenforceitbylegalaction.Anun
dividedHindufamilyisordinarilyjointnotonlyinestate,butalsoinfoodorworsh
ip;therefore,notonlytheconcernsofthejointproperty,butwhateverrelatestothei
rcommensalityandtheirreligiousdutiesandobservances,mustberegulatedbyit
smembers
orthebusinessmanagertowhomtheyhaveexpressly,orbyimplication,delegate
dthetaskofregulation. 14 TheKartarepresentshisjointfamilyon
allmatters,whethertheyarereligious,socialorlegalincharacter.
Heactsonbehalfofthefamilyandhisactsare
absolutelybindingonthem.Thejointfamilyhasnocorporateexistence;itactsona
llissuesthroughitsKarta.In Radhakrishnav. Kuluram, 13theSupremeCourt
heldthattheKartacanenterinto
anyttransactiononbehalfofthefamilyanditwillbeordinarilybindingonthememb
ers.14

13. 16MANU/SC/0393/1962:AIR1967SC574.
14.Radhakrishnav.Kuluram,MANU/SC/0393/1962:AIR1967SC574.

Legalpositionofthekarta

Thekartacanfilesuits
ortake
otherlegalproceedingsto
safeguard
theinterestofthefamilyandits
propertiesandbusiness.Hecanrepresent
thefamilyeffectivelyin
aproceedingevenifhehasnotbeennamedassuch.Whereatransactionpurportsto
havebeenenteredinto
bytwo
or
morepersonsdescribedaskartasor
managersofthejointfamily,
theymustall
joinasPlaintiffsinthesuit.However,itisnotnecessarythatallmembersofthejoint
familyshouldjoininthesuit. 15
Thereisnorightinaminororanadultmemberofthefamilytobringasuittosetaside
adecreepassedagainstthemanageronthegroundthatthemanageractedwithgros
snegligenceintheconductofthesuit.Anadverseorderpassedagainstthemanage
rrequiringhimtodeliverthepossessionofthepropertytoanotherperson,bindsth
eothermembersofthefamily,thoughtheyarenotpartiesthere. 16
Hecanreferanydisputestoarbitrationorcaneffectsettlementorcompromiseofsu
chdisputes.Thereferencemaybeinrespectofdisputesbetweenthefamilyandano
utsider,ordisputesbetweenthemembersofthefamilythemselves,e.g.as
to
sharesonpartition.Acompromiseenteredintobythemanagerbonafideforthebe
nefitofthefamily,bindstheothermembersofthefamilyincludingminors.

Positionofthekartaregardingincome
Themanagerastheheadofthefamilyhascontrolovertheincomeandexpenditure,
andheisthecustodianofthesurplus,ifany.17 Besidestheexpensesofmanageme
nt,realizationandprotectionof
thefamilyestate,thefamilypurposesare
ordinarilymaintenance,residence,education,marriage,sraddhaandreligiousc
eremoniesofthecoparcenersandtheirfamilies.Theexpensesofeachcoparcener
orhisbranchcannotinlaw,
intheabsenceof
usage,bedebitedto
theparticularcoparcener.If
hespendsmorethantheothermembersapprove,theirremedyistodemandapartiti
on. 18

15.Gendalalv.Nanalal,AIR1956MB58
16.Venkatanarayanav.Somaraju,(1937)Mad880
17.1Mulla,PrinciplesofHinduLaw438(S.A.Desaied.,LexisNexisButterworths20thed.2007)
18.Bhoganiv.Jaggernath,(1909)13CWN309

Solongasthemanagerofthejointfamilyadministersthefundsforthepurposeofth
efamily,heisnotunderthesameobligationtoeconomizeortosave,aswouldbethe
casewithanagentortrustee. 31On theotherhand,heisliableto make goodto
themtheirsharesofallsums,whichhehasmisappropriated,orwhichhehasspentf

orpurposesotherthanthoseinwhichthejointfamilywasinterested.

Positionregardingdebts
Hecanacknowledgeliabilitytopaydebtsdueandpayablebythefamily,togivedis
chargefordebt;
topayintereston
moneyborrowedetc.dueandpayablebythefamily.Ifthemanagerrevivesatimeb
arreddebtbypassingapromissorynote,healoneisliableforthedebt.
IfadecreeispassedagainstthekartaormanagerofthejointHindufamilyinrespect
ofaliabilityproperlyincurredforthenecessitiesofthefamily,
thebindingcharacterofthisdecreeupontheinterestoftheothermembers
depends,notupontheirhavingornothavingbeenpartiestothesuitbutontheauth
orityofthemanagertoincurtheliability.
Wherethemanagerborrowsmoneytosavethefamilypropertyandtoremovethefe
arofdisturbancelikelytobecausedinthefamilybusiness,theexistenceofnecessi
ty
maybepresumed,wherethereisnothingto
showthatthelenderactedotherwisethaningoodfaith.
A
creditoradvancingmoneyto
themanagermustsatisfyhimselfthatthemoneywasrequiredforfamilypurposes.
Thenecessityforamanagertoborrowmoneyconfersuponhimauthoritytoborro
wuponreasonablecommercialtermsandnofurther. 19

Positionregardingaccounts
Intheabsenceofanyproofofmisappropriationorfraudulentandimproperconver
sionbythemanagerofa
jointfamilyestate,heisliableto
accountonpartitiononlyforassetswhichhehasreceived,notforwhatheoughtor
mighthavereceivedifthefamilymoneyhadbeenprofitablydealtwith.
19. Ibid,p.632

Positionregardingbusiness
Ifthefamilyhasancestralbusinessthekartahasarighttocarryonthebusinesswith
orwithoutthehelpoftheotherfamilymembersandforthatpurposetodoallactsan
dthingsrequiredtobedonetocarry
onthebusinesssuchasbuyingandsellingormanufacturinggoods,engagingem
ployees,toenterinto
contracts
forsaleandpurchaseofgoods,toborrowmoney,etc.

Hecanalsoenterintopartnershipswithanyotherpersonorpersonswhenthefamil
yitselfiscarryingonanyancestralbusiness.Thepowerofamanagertocarryonafa
milybusinessnecessarilyimpliesa powerto mortgageorsellthefamilyproperty
fora
legitimate
andproperpurposeofthebusiness.Themanagercanmakecontracts,give
receipts andcompromiseordischargeclaimsincidentaltothebusiness.

Position regarding property

Immovable property :
Ifthefamilyhasimmovablepropertyorpropertieshehasthepowertomanagethes
amebyrecoveringrents,payingexpensesbywayoftaxes,maintenanceandcarryi
ngoutrepairs.TheKartacanbringasuitforrecoveryofthejointfamilypropertyonb
ehalfofthejointfamilymembers.
Partition-Thepowerofthefatherofajointfamilytodividefamilyproperty
atanytimeduringhislifeprovidedhegiveshissonsequalsharewithhimself,iswel
lestablished.Theconsentofthesonsisnotnecessaryyfortheexerciseofthatpower
,therightofthefathertoseverhimselfandthesonsintersebeingpartofthepartriaep
otestasthatwasrecognizedbytheHindulaw.Ifthepartitionisunequalandunfairit
isopentothesons,iftheyaremajors,to
repudiatethepartitionbutincasetheyareminors,theycantakeactiononlywhenth
eybecomemajors.Tillthenthepartitionremainsvalid. 20

20.P.N.VenkatasubramaniaIyerv.P.N.EaswaraIyer,MANU/TN/0226/1966:AIR1966Mad266.

Alienation-TheKarta or managercanalienate thecoparceneryproperty

bysaleormortgageforlegalnecessityyorbenefitoftheestateorotherwise.TheKar
taisnotrequiredtoobtaintheconsentoftheothercoparcenersforalienationandifth
ealienationisforlegalnecessity,itwillbindt heothercoparceners.Anyalienatio
n
madesubsequent
to
therelinquishmentoftheofficewillnotbindtheothercoparceners.Butanalienat
ionbythemanagerfornofamilypurposeornecessity
andmadewithout
theassentoftheothersisvoidandasubsequentratificationbytheothermembersca
nnotvvalidateit.
Whenajuniormemberisallowedtodealwithfamilypropertiesasifhewastheman
age,anyalienationbyhimforfamilynecessityyisbindingonallthemembersofth

efamily,includingtherealmanager.Wherethejointfamilypropertyisalienatedb
ythekartabutlegalnecessityisnotproved,stillthesaleisbindingontheundivided
shareofthekarta.Theonlyreasonablelimitationthatcanbeimposedonthekartaist
hathemustactwithprudence,
andprudenceimpliescaution
aswellasforesightandexcludeshasty,
recklessandarbitrary
conduct.Thesituationisto
beassessedonthebasisofthefacts
ofthesituation.However,analienationmadeforagrosslyinadequateamounteve
nifforalegalnecessitycannotbeheldtobevalid.Butiflegalnecessityisproved,m
ereinadequacyofconsiderationisnogroundforsettingasidethesalebythemanag
er.
Itcannotbehoweversaidto
bebeneficialto
a
Hindujointfamilyforthemanagertopurchasepropertyforwhichthefamilyisun
abletopayandwhenthefamilyisunabletopay,it
iscertainlynotforthebenefitofthefamilythataliability
shouldbecastuponthejointfamilyancestralproperty.21 Alienationbythemana
gingmemberofthefamilycannotbesaidtobeforlegalnecessity,ifthelegalremed
ytorecoverthedebthasbecometimebarred. 22

21. MANU/UP/0044/1939:AIR1939All486
22. JhabbuRamv.BahoranSinghandOrs.MANU/UP/0324/1925:AIR1926All243

Thealieneethereforehastoproveoneofthefollowingtwothings:
(1)

)thetransactionwasinfactjustifiedbylegalnecessityorforthebenefitoftheestate.

)hehasmaderreasonableorbonafideenquiriesastotheexistenceofthene
cessity
andsatisfiedhimselfthatthemanagerwasactingforthebenefitoftheestate.
(2)

GiftsItiscompetentforafathertomakeagiftofimmovablepropertytoadaughterifthegi
ftisofareasonableextenthavingregardtothepropertiesheldbythefamilybecaus

eaHindufatherisunderlegalobligation
tomakeagiftofareasonableportionofthefamilypropertyasaprovisiontohisdaug
hters
ontheoccasionoftheirmarriages.However,
asimilargiftfroma
58
husbandto
hiswife orfroma
father-in-lawto
hisdaughter-inlawcannotbesaidtobeforpiouspurposes.ThepositioninHindulawisthatwhere
asthefatherhasthepowertogiftancestralmovablepropertywithinreasonablelim
its,hehasnosuchpowerregarding
theimmovableproperty
exceptforpiouspurposes.Giftsofcoparceneryimmovableormovablepropertyt
ostrangersarevoid.

Movableproperty
The
fatherhasthepowerofmakingwithinreasonablelimits
giftsofancestralmoveablepropertywithout
theconsentofhissonsforthepurposeofperformingindispensableactsofduty,an
dforpurposesprescribedbytextsoflaw,asgiftsthroughaffection,supportt
ofthefamily,rrelieffromdistressandsoforth. 23 Agiftofaffectionmaybemadeto
awife,adaughterandeventoason.

23. Gaurammav.Mallappa,MANU/SC/0252/1963:AIR1964SC510.

Liabilities of Karta

Kartas
liabilities
are
numerous
and
multifarious.
# Maintenance: - In a joint Hindu family, the right of maintenance of all the coparceners out
of the joint family funds is an inherent right and an essential quality of the coparcenery. As
Mayne puts it: Those who would be entitled to share the bulk of property are entitled to have
all their necessary expenses paid out of its income. Every coparcener, from the head of the
family to the junior most members, is entitled to maintenance. A Karta is responsible to
maintain all members of the family, coparceners and others. If he improperly excludes any
member from maintenance or does not properly maintain them, he can be sued for
maintenance as well as for arrears of maintenance.

# Marriage: - He is also responsible for the marriage of all unmarried members. This
responsibility is particularly emphasized in respect of daughters. Marriage of a daughter is
considered as a sacrosanct duty under Hindu law. Marriage expenses are defrayed out of joint
family funds.
Chandra
Kishore
v.
Nanak
Chand
AIR
1975
Del
175
In this case it was held that Karta is responsible for managing the expenses of the marriage of
the daughter from the joint family estate. And in case marriage expenses are met from outside
they are to be reimbursed from the joint family funds.
# Accounts at the time of Partition: - Partition means bringing the joint status to an end. On
partition, the family ceases to be a joint family. Under the Mitakshara law, partition means
two
things:
(a)
Severance
of
status
/interest,
and
(b) Actual division of property in accordance with the shares so specified, known as partition
by metes and bounds.
The former is a matter of individual decision, the desire to sever himself and enjoy the
unspecified and undefined share separately from others while the latter is a resultant
consequent of his declaration of intention to sever but which is essentially a bilateral action.
Taking of accounts means an enquiry into the joint family assets. It means preparing an
inventory of all the items of the joint family property.
The Mitakshara Karta is not liable to accounts and no coparcener can even at the time of
partition, call upon the karta to account his past dealings with the joint family property unless
charges of fraud, misappropriation/conversion are made against him.

Ghuia
Devi
v.
Shyamlal
Mandal
AIR
1974
Pat
68
Facts: - Gokul Mandal was the common ancestor of the family, he had 2 sons: - Gobardhan
and Ghoghan. After Gokuls death Gobardhan was the karta of the family. Shyamlal and
Kisan are the sons of Gobardhan. Shyamlal, defendant no.1 is the husband of the plaintiff. In
1951, partition took place between two branches: Shyamlal and Ghoghan. After partition,
Shyamlal began to act as karta of the family consisting of the members of Gobardhans
branch. Appellant is a pardanashin lady. Shyamlal took advantage of her position and
misappropriation of property and its income and as a result of it a suit was filed. Plea of
appellant was that their client was entitled to a decree for accounts. Their plea was rejected
because they could adduce no evidence.
Judgment: - In the suits for partition of a Joint Hindu Family property the manager/karta can
only be made liable for revaluation of account if there is a proof of misappropriation /fraud
and improper conversion of joint family assets and property. It was said that in the absence of

such a proof a coparcener seeking partition is not entitled to require the manager to account
for his past dealings with the joint family property.
However, when a coparcener suing for partition is entirely excluded from the enjoyment of
property
he
can
ask
for
accounts.
After the severance of status has taken place, the karta is bound to render accounts of all
expenditure and income in the same manner as a trustee or agent is bound to render accounts.
This means that from the date of severance of status, the karta is bound to account for all
mesne profits.
# Representation: - The karta represents the family. He is its sole representative vis-a vis the
government and all outsiders and in that capacity he has to discharge many responsibilities
and liabilities on behalf of the family. He has to pay taxes and other dues on behalf of the
family and he can be sued for all his dealings on behalf of the family with the outsiders.24

24. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/karta_hsa.htm

Rights and Powers of Karta

The powers of a Karta are divided into two parts:

Power of Alienation:
The most important case with respect to Kartas power of alienation is Rani v. Shanta.
The Karta has very limited powers with respect to alienation of the joint family property.
The Karta can alienate the joint family property only with the consent of the
coparceners. Alienation can be done only for three purposes:

Legal Necessity: The term legal necessity has not been expressly defined in any law
or judgment. It is supposed to include all those things which are deemed necessary for
the members of the family. Necessity is to be understood, not in the sense of what is
absolutely indispensible, but what would be regarded as proper and reasonable. If it is
shown that familys need was for a particular thing, and if property was alienated for the
satisfaction of that particular need, then it is enough proof that there was a legal
necessity.25
A few illustrative cases are:
a) Food, shelter and clothing.
b) Marriage (second marriages are not considered a legal necessity).
c) Medical care.
d) Defence of person accused of a crime (exception to this rule is murder of a family
member).
e) Payments of debts, taxes etc.
f) Performance of ceremonies (like marriage, grihapravesham).
g) Rent etc.
Benefit of Estate: Karta, as a prudent manager, can do all those things which are in
furtherance of the familys advancement, to prevent probable losses, provided his acts
are not purely of speculative or visionary nature. The last clause means that the
property cannot be converted into money just because the property is not yielding
enough income.26

25.http://www.shareyouressays.com/117738/10-general-powers-of-a-karta-of-hindu-joint-family
26.http://learningoflaw.blogspot.in/2013/04/powers-of-karta-headmanager-of-joint.html

Indispensable Duties: This term implies the performance of those acts which are
religious, pious or charitable. Examples of indispensable duties are marriages,
grihapravesham etc. In this case there is a requirement to differentiate between
alienation made for indispensable duties and gifts for charitable purposes. The difference
lies in the fact that in the former case while discharging indispensable duties, the Karta
has unlimited powers in the sense that he can alienate the entire property for that
purpose. But in the case of gifts for charitable purposes, only a small portion can be
alienated.
Note: If the alienation is not made for any of the three purposes, then the alienation is
not void but voidable at the instance of any coparcener.
Other Powers:

These powers of the Karta are almost absolute. There are 9 powers in all and each of
them has been dealt with in brief below:
Powers of Management: It is an absolute power. The Karta may mismanage or may
discriminate between members and cannot be questioned on such aspects. But the Karta
cannot deny maintenance and occupation of property to any member altogether. The
check on his powers in this case is the power of partition vested in the coparcener.
Right to Income: All incomes of the joint family property should be brought to the
Karta and it is for the Karta to allot funds to members and to look after their needs and
requirements.
Right to Representation: The Karta represents the family in all matters legal, social
and religious. His acts are binding on the family.
Power of compromise: The Karta has the power to compromise in all disputes relating
to the family property or management. His acts are binding on the members of the
family; but in case of a minor, it has to be approved by the court under O.32, Rule 7,
CPC. The compromise made by the Karta can be challenged in court by any of the
coparceners only on the ground of malafide.
Power to refer a dispute to Arbitration: The Karta has the power to refer any dispute
with respect to family property or management to an arbitration council and the decision
is binding on the family.27

27. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/karta_hsa.htm

Power of Acknowledgement: The Karta can acknowledge any debt due to the family
or pay interest on a debt or make part or full payment of principal etc. But the Karta has
no power to acknowledge a time-barred debt.
Power to Contract Debts: The Karta has implied authority to contract debts and
pledge the credit and property of the family. His decision is binding on the members of
the joint family.
Loan on Promissory Note: When the Karta takes a loan for family purposes and
executes a promissory note, then the other members may be sued as well even if they
are not parties to the note. But the members are liable to the extent of their shares
whereas the Karta is personally liable on the note.
Power to enter into Contracts: The Karta has the power to enter into contracts which
are binding on the family.

Burden of Proof:
If the alienation is challenged in court of law, then it is for the alienee to show that there
was a legal necessity. In effect, he has to show two aspects:
a) Proof of actual necessity.
b) Proof that he made a bonafide enquiries about the existence of legal necessity and
that he did all that reasonable to satisfy himself of the existence of the necessity.
Thus this presentation has discussed all the important aspects with respect to Karta in a
joint Hindu family, viz., who can be a Karta, the characteristics, liabilities, powers and
finally the burden of proof in case of a challenge.

CONCLUSION

TheconceptofKartaintheHindujointfamilyisnotjustapositionofpowerbutalso
servesaverypracticalpurpose.AHindujointfamilyisaverycomplex
entityanditisimperativethatinorderthatallthefunctionsanddutiesare
carriedoutconveniently,
there
beacentralizingforce,wwhichisreadilyprovidedbythekarta.Whetheritisregar
dingthelegalissuesorregardingpropertyissues,thekartarepresentstheentire
jointfamilyandthissavesthetroubleofmultipleclaimsofaction.Centralizationist
hekeytogoodmanagementandthisisprovidedbythekarta.
Further analyzing the position of karta, it can be said that he has less liabilities
and more powers. Though at the same time it cannot be said that he holds the

position of a despot. When it comes to determination of the position of karta it

can be said that he holds a unique position. In totality it can be said that all
family members are duty bound to accept what karta says until/unless it is
detrimental to themAlongwithnumerouspowers,a lotofchecks have
alsobeenimposedonthekartatopreventanymisuseofpower.Thisensuresthatthek
artaworksforthebenefitofthejointHindufamily.Lawhasprovidedenoughremed
iestothemembers
ofthejointfamilytoprotecttheirinterestincaseofanydespoticbehaviorbythekart
a.
Someofthemostrecentcasesinvolvingthelawregardingtherightsanddutiesofth
ekartaoftheHinduJointfamilyhavebeenanalysed.
InShankarlalLadhav.VasanthDeshmukhandOrs.,itwasheldthatthepurchaser
ofthejointHindufamilyproperty
isunderobligationto
dischargeburdenofproofto
proveexistenceofthelegalnecessity.Itwasalsoheldthatthemarriageexpensesoft
hemalecoparcenercanberegardedasincidentsoflegalnecessityandmerevaguer
ecitalsinthesaledeed
thatitwasforthepurposeofimprovementofagriculturallandswouldnotbesuffic
ient.
InBhagyammav.Ningaramma,ithasbeen
heldthe
rightsandinterestsofthepeopleaffectedneedtobetakenintoconsiderationbythe
alienee.AsimilarviewwasgiveninthecaseofChanumuriSubhaveniandOrs.v.S
appaSrinivasaRaoandOrs.whereitwasheldthatincasetherewasnopressingnee
dforthepaymentofdebts,thealienationmadeatalowconsideration,couldnotbes
aidtobeforlegalnecessity.
InDevKishanv.Ram
Kishan,itwasheldthatanyproperty
alienatedforanunlawfulpurposecannotbetermedaslegalnecessity.Inthiscaset
healienationhadbeenmadetocarryoutchildmarriage.
InJagdishParshadv.LaxmiNarayanandOrs.itwasheldthatanysuitinstitutedfor
aninjunctiontorestrainthekartafromalienatingproperty,wasnotmaintainable.
Further,itwasalsoheldthatlegalnecessitycannotremainstaticanditisforthekarta
todecidetheexistenceoflegalnecessityorusepropertyasanactofgoodmanagem
ent.Asimilarrulingwasgiven
in
thecaseofKrishnamoorthyGounderv.SitaramaGounderandOrs.Thesedecisi
onswerebasedonthedecisiongivenbytheSupreme
Court
inthecaseofSunilKumarv.RamPrakash.
Analysing the present powers and qualifications it is clear that the qualifications , powers and
position of Karta is however large powers a karta might have, he cannot be a despot. He has
blood ties with other members of the family. After all he is a person of limited powers. He
has liabilities towards members. Any coparcener can at any time ask for partition. He obtains

no reward for his services and he discharges many onerous responsibilities towards the
family and its members.
Recent cases have also proved that though the position of karta may appear to be despotic but
it is its power to to exercise is rightaar checked by certain limits so there the no need to
change the powers of the karta.
As far as theposition of female karta is involved It should be understood that amendments are
only the first step. The law can only be a path breaker; it cannot ensure that justice is done.
Hence there is no need to redefine the qualification, powers and position of karta .

Bibliography

1. Mulla, Principles of Hind law, vol.1 20th ed. (ed. S.A.Desai), LexisNexis Butterworths
New Delhi, 2008
2. Mulla, Principles of Hind law, vol.2 20th ed. (ed. S.A.Desai), LexisNexis Butterworths
New Delhi, 2008
3. Sanjiva Row, Sanjiva Rows The Indian Succession Act, 7th ed. 2000, Butterworths
India, New Delhi

4. Oxford Dictionary, 13th edn, Oxford printing house, 2008

5. Collin Dictionary, Collin Harpers Publication, 2009
6. K J Aiyars Judicial Dictionary , 13th edn (ed P M Bakshi), Butterworths India, New
Delhi, 2001
[1] Manisha Singh, National Law University, Jodhpur
[2] AIR 1971 SC 1028