9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1646 - HC - Indian LawsCan female can be Karta of HUF - rights of female - rights in the co- parcenary property among male and female members - Held that - The impediment which prevented a female member of a HUF from becoming its Karta was that she did not possess the necessary qualification of co-parcenership. 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 co-parceners 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 has been 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 Court finds no restriction in the law preventing the eldest female co-parcener of an HUF, from being its Karta. 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 co-parcenary to which she succeeded after her father s demise in terms of Section 6. The said provision only emphasises the statutory rights of females. Accordingly, issues 5, 6 and 8 too are found in favour of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the prayer clause, and she is declared the Karta of D.R. Gupta Sons (HUF) .
Issues Involved:
1. Proper valuation and court fee payment. 2. Maintainability of the suit for declaration. 3. Existence of coparcenary property or HUF. 4. Plaintiff's membership in the HUF. 5. Separation of plaintiff's interest upon the father's demise. 6. Plaintiff's status in the HUF post-marriage and participation in its affairs. 7. Plaintiff's eligibility to be Karta. 8. Effect of the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act on joint family property and coparcenary law. 9. Relief sought. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Proper Valuation and Court Fee Payment The court initially decided this issue in favor of defendants Nos. 1 to 4, but this decision was overturned in Appeal No. 293/2010 on 17.01.2013. Therefore, the issue stands settled in favor of the plaintiff. Issues 2, 3, 4, and 7: Maintainability, Existence of Coparcenary Property, Plaintiff's Membership, and Eligibility to be Karta The plaintiff's counsel argued that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, grants equal rights to Hindu females as to Hindu males, making daughters coparceners by birth with the same rights as sons. The court cited Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which supports this argument. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Tribhovan Das Haribhai Tamboli v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, stating that the senior-most member of an HUF becomes the Karta. The plaintiff's counsel further presented evidence of the HUF's existence and the plaintiff's involvement, including letters and family settlements recognizing the HUF and the plaintiff's share. The court concluded that the plaintiff, being the eldest surviving member of the HUF, is entitled to be the Karta. It acknowledged that the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act removed gender-based disqualifications, allowing females to be Karta. Thus, issues 2, 3, 4, and 7 were answered in favor of the plaintiff. Issues 5 and 6: Plaintiff's Interest Post-Father's Demise and Status Post-Marriage The court found that the plaintiff's rights in the HUF did not dissipate upon her father's demise and were inherited by her. Her marriage did not alter her right to inherit the coparcenary property. The court emphasized that the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act ensures equal rights for female coparceners. Therefore, issues 5 and 6 were resolved in favor of the plaintiff. Issue 8: Effect of the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act The court noted that the 2005 amendment grants daughters the same rights and liabilities in coparcenary property as sons, thereby removing gender-based discrimination. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Ganduri Koteshwar Ramma v. Chakiri Yanadi, which affirmed equal rights for male and female members of a joint Hindu family. The court concluded that the amendment allows the eldest female coparcener to be the Karta, thus addressing issue 8 in favor of the plaintiff. Issue 9: Relief The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, declaring her the Karta of "D.R. Gupta & Sons (HUF)." The decree sheet was ordered to be drawn up accordingly, and the suit was disposed of in these terms. Conclusion The court ruled comprehensively in favor of the plaintiff on all issues, recognizing her right to be the Karta of the HUF based on the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, which ensures equal rights for daughters in coparcenary property.
|
