A female can be a Karta, if eldest amongst coparceners #indianlaws

The Delhi High Court has held that the impediment which prevented a female member of a HUF from becoming its Karta was that she does not possess the necessary qualification of coparcenership. Now that this disqualification was removed by the 2005 Amendment, there is no reason why Hindu women should be denied the position of a Karta. If a male member of an HUF, by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member.  The objective of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is to recognise the rights of female Hindus as coparceners and to enhance their right to equality apropos succession. 

Question before the Delhi High Court in the instant matter was to determine as to whether a daughter, if is the first born amongst the coparceners of the HUF property, would by virtue of her birth, be entitled to be its Karta?

It was contended on behalf of the Plaintiff (Daughter) that pursuant to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 all rights which were available to a Hindu male are now also available to a Hindu female. Accordingly it was claimed that a daughter is now recognised as a coparcener by birth in her own right and has the same rights in the coparcenary property that are given to a son. Reliance was placed upon Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and on ratio laid down by Supreme Court in Tribhovan Das Haribhai Tamboli vs. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and Ors. (AIR 1991 SC 1538) which held that the senior most member in a HUF would become the Karta.

As per the facts of the present case, it was not in dispute between the parties that the plaintiff was the eldest surviving member of the HUF.

On the contrary, the claim was resisted on the grounds that Section 4 has to be read in the context in which it was enacted, i.e. only those customary rights have been overridden for which there is a specific provision made in the Act; that Section 6 does not specifically refer to the expression Karta of an HUF. It was further submitted that Section 6 defines the rights only with respect to the inheritance of property and not its management; therefore, the undefined rights will have to be gleaned from customs as well as from the interpretation of ancient texts regarding Hindu religion.

The Court observed that the right of the plaintiff accrued to her upon the demise of the eldest Karta. By law, the eldest coparcener is to be karta of the HUF and it would be an odd proposition that while females have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same. The clear language of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act does not stipulate any such restriction.

It was held that the impediment which prevented a female member of a HUF from becoming its Karta was that she does not possess the necessary qualification of coparcenership. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is a socially beneficial legislation; it gives equal rights of inheritance to Hindu males and females. Its objective is to recognise the rights of female Hindus as coparceners and to enhance their right to equality apropos succession. Therefore, Courts would be extremely vigilant apropos any endeavour to curtail or fetter the statutory guarantee of enhancement of their rights. Now that this disqualification was removed by the 2005 Amendment, there is no reason why Hindu women should be denied the position of a Karta. If a male member of an HUF, by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member.

The plaintiff’s father’s right in the HUF did not dissipate but was inherited by her. Nor did her marriage alter the right to inherit the coparcenary to which she succeeded after her father’s demise in terms of Section 6. The said provision only emphasises the statutory rights of females.

[Sujata Sharma vs. Manu Gupta]

(Delhi HC, 22.12.2015) – CS(OS) 2011/2006