2023 (12) TMI 1370 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for Declaration for declaring the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) as the Karta of Late Shri D.R. Gupta and Sons, HUF allowed - married daughter can be the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or not - Whether the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 to Section 6 of the Act, 1956 is retrospective? - HELD THAT - A Joint Hindu Family consists of male members descended lineally from a common male ancestor and included their unmarried daughters, wives, mothers and widows. A coparcenary is a narrower body which is a subset within a Joint Hindu Family where an interest in the property is created by birth. Though a joint family status is a result of birth, the possession of joint property is only an appendage and not prerequisite for the constitution of such a family as held in Haridas vs. Devaki Bai, 1926 SCC OnLine Bom 76. On the other hand, a coparcenary is created only when there is joint or coparcenary property. Birth in the Joint Hindu Family, seniority by age and the status of being a Coparcener are the necessary qualifications to become a Karta. The traditional Law nowhere proscribed a female from being a manager but the requisite of being the senior most male was the necessary corollary of the fact that only male members of the Joint Hindu Family who were born within the degrees of coparcenary, were given the status of a Coparcener. Whether recognition of a daughter as a Coparcener necessarily entitles her to be a Karta? - HELD THAT - The concept of coparcenary is derived from the joint ownership of a common pool of assets held by a family and the necessary corollary was that who owns the property, would have a right to manage it. When under the traditional Hindu law, the woman was not entitled to coparcenary property; resultantly, she could not assume the position of Karta. However, the Amendment to Section 6 of the Act, 1956 redefines the meaning of coparcenary as understood under the traditional Hindu Law, which is no longer limited to devolution of interest in the coparcenary property alone but encompasses all other incidents of a Coparcener, including the right to be a Karta. To say that a woman can be a coparcener but not a Karta, would be giving an interpretation which would not only be anomalous but also against the stated Object of introduction of Amendment. The appellant claims that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate a significant aspect that performance of spiritual and managerial duties is by the Karta of the HUF which respondent No. 1 being a female, cannot perform. Thus, it has to be accepted that only the appellant, being the eldest male coparcener, is eligible to become the Karta of the D.R. Gupta Sons HUF - This argument raises a fundamental question of the necessary competency of the woman to perform the religious and familial obligations of a Karta in the backdrop of Mitakshara Law. Spiritual efficacy of a female Coparcener - HELD THAT - The spiritual efficiency is an indispensable requirement under the Dayabhaga Law; however, the same cannot be presumed under Mitakshara law. It is amply clear from the above that the spiritual duties performed by a Karta of an HUF governed by Mitakshara law was only coincidental to the fact that only male descendants were entitled to become coparceners in the past. Thus, with the amendment in law conferring daughters with coparcenary rights, spiritual efficiency or the ability to perform certain rituals cannot become a prerequisite qualification for becoming a Karta of an HUF governed by Mitakshara law - Spiritual efficiency comes under consideration only when the question of preference arises. In the present case, the question of preference is obviated by the overt seniority by age of respondent No.1 in comparison to the appellant. Non-Participation in the Affairs of the Family after Marriage - HELD THAT - Being a Karta is conferment of legal status which includes right to manage the HUF properties and even if the appellant represented himself as Karta in official correspondence on behalf of HUF to manage the property, it does not take away the legal right of the eldest member of the Coparcener of the family, even if she is a woman, to stake a claim to be a Karta. The right of the daughter of a Coparcener to enjoy the status of a Coparcener from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 cannot hinge upon the life span of her father. Such a distinction can certainly not sustain the test of intelligible differentia that was sought to be addressed through the Amendment. Thus, in the present case, it is established there was no continuation of D.R. Gupta Sons HUF after the demise of Shri D. R. Gupta in the year 1977 and the property got mutated in the name of all the legal heirs. In furtherance of such severance of status, the also parties determined the shares of each of the branch of the five brothers to be 1/5th as mentioned in the Memorandum of Settlement. Thus, even though no partition by metes and bounds took effect between the parties, a partition took place leading to severance of status of the undivided family into a divided family. The respondent No. 1 is hereby declared as the Karta for the purposes of representing the D.R. Gupta Sons HUF before the Competent Authority. Deficient Court fee be paid - there are no merit in the present appeal which is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Effect of the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act on the concept of Joint Family or its properties in the law of coparcenary.
2. Whether a married daughter can be the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)?
3. Whether the plaintiff is a member of the D.R. Gupta and Sons HUF and legally entitled to be the Karta?
4. Whether there exists any coparcenary property or HUF at all?
5. Whether the interest of the plaintiff separated upon the demise of her father?
6. Whether the suit has been valued properly and proper court fee has been paid?
7. Whether the suit for declaration is maintainable in its present form?

Detailed Analysis:

1. Effect of the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act:

The court examined whether the 2005 Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act changed the traditional law regarding coparcenary rights and the role of Karta. The Amendment gave daughters equal rights as sons in coparcenary property, thus enabling them to become Karta if they are the senior-most coparcener. The court concluded that the Amendment's language clearly confers all rights of a coparcener to daughters, including the right to be a Karta. The title of Section 6 and the Preamble of the Act cannot limit the express statutory rights conferred by the Amendment. The court emphasized that the right to manage property is incidental to ownership, and denying this right to women would contradict the Amendment's objective of gender equality.

2. Whether a Married Daughter Can Be the Karta:

The court addressed the appellant's argument that a married daughter cannot be a Karta due to traditional Hindu customs. It was held that the Amendment to Section 6 does not distinguish between married and unmarried daughters, and a daughter does not cease to be a coparcener upon marriage. The court rejected the notion that societal stereotypes could limit a woman's right to be a Karta and asserted that legislative changes aim to eliminate patriarchal discrimination. Thus, a married daughter can indeed be the Karta if she is the senior-most coparcener.

3. Plaintiff's Membership and Entitlement to be Karta:

The court examined whether the plaintiff, a daughter, is a member of the D.R. Gupta and Sons HUF and entitled to be the Karta. It was clarified that the right to be a coparcener is by birth and does not depend on the father's survival at the time of the Amendment. The court referred to the Vineeta Sharma case, which established that a daughter's coparcenary rights are independent of her father's existence. The plaintiff's right to be a Karta was upheld, as she is the eldest surviving coparcener.

4. Existence of Coparcenary Property or HUF:

The court evaluated whether the D.R. Gupta and Sons HUF continued to exist after the demise of its members. Evidence showed that the property was mutated in the names of all legal heirs, indicating a severance of status and partition of the HUF. The court concluded that the HUF ceased to exist as a joint family, but for revenue purposes, it continued to be recorded as an HUF. The Memorandum of Family Settlement confirmed the partition of the HUF property, and the plaintiff's entitlement as a coparcener was established.

5. Separation of Interest Upon Father's Demise:

The court addressed whether the plaintiff's interest separated upon her father's demise. The appellant argued that the plaintiff's father's death before the Amendment precluded her from being a coparcener. However, the court clarified that the coparcenary right is by birth and not contingent on the father's survival. The plaintiff's status as a coparcener remained unaffected by her father's death.

6. Valuation of Suit and Court Fee:

The court examined the valuation of the suit and the court fee paid. It was noted that the plaintiff valued the suit for jurisdiction at over Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, but paid a fixed court fee of Rs. 20/-. The court held that the court fee should be ad valorem based on the jurisdictional valuation, and directed the plaintiff to pay the deficient court fee within one week.

7. Maintainability of Suit for Declaration:

The court considered whether the suit for declaration was maintainable without seeking consequential relief. It was held that since the parties were in constructive joint possession of the property, no consequential relief of possession was required. The suit for declaration of the plaintiff's status as Karta was maintainable without additional relief.

Conclusion:

The court declared the respondent No. 1 as the Karta of the D.R. Gupta and Sons HUF, dismissing the appellant's appeal. The court emphasized the legislative intent to provide equal rights to women and rejected societal stereotypes as a basis to deny such rights. The plaintiff was directed to pay the deficient court fee, and the suit was deemed maintainable in its current form.