DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

FAMILY LAW- I

“POSITION AND POWERS OF KARTA”

Submitted To Submitted By

Mrs Samreen Hussain Aniket-Sachan

Assistant Professor, Law B.A. LLB(HONS)

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya IVth semester

National Law University SECTION-“A”

1
 • TABLE OF CONTENTS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................2

 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................3

 WHO CAN BE A KARTA?.............................................................................................5

 Senior Most Male Member:............................................................................................5

 Other Male Member( junior member).............................................................................5

 Female Members as Karta...............................................................................................5

 POSITION OF KARTA...................................................................................................6

 POWERS OF KARTA.....................................................................................................7

 Power of Alienation of Joint Property............................................................................7

 Powers of management:..................................................................................................8

 Right to income:..............................................................................................................8

 Right to representation:...................................................................................................8

 Power of Compromise:...................................................................................................9

 Power to refer a dispute to arbitration:............................................................................9

 Karta’s power to contract debts and enter into contracts................................................9

 Loan on Promissory note: -.............................................................................................9

 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................10

 BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................................................................11

 BOOKS.........................................................................................................................11

 WEBSITES...................................................................................................................11

 ARTICLES....................................................................................................................11

 CASES..........................................................................................................................11

2
 • INTRODUCTION
“The position of the ‘Karta’ or the ‘manager’ of the Hindu joint family finds its roots in the
‘Patriarch’ of the ancient family units. The term ‘Karta’ has been defined in the case of Suraj
Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Persad.1
Property belonging to a joint family is ordinarily managed by the father or another senior
member of the family: The Manager of a joint family is called Karta.” 2The absolute powers
of the ‘Patriarch’ have now evolved into superior powers that are accompanied by similar
responsibilities. These powers and responsibilities are several and quite multifaceted. The
power of alienation of a Karta is limited since alienation can only be done in exceptional
cases. The other powers of the Karta, however, are almost absolute.”
In the entire Hindu joint family, the karta or manager occupies a very important position.
Karta is the eldest male member of the family. He is the Hindu patriarch. “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.”
In the entire Hindu Joint Family ‘Karta’ or ‘Manager’ occupies a very important position.
There is no office or institution in any other system of the world can be compared with it. He
is a person with limited power but he possess such vast power with in ambit of joint family
which nobody enjoys.

“The Karta of a Hindu joint Family in Hindu Law is the senior most member of the family
entitled to manage family affairs, in his absence the next eldest male member after him is
entitled to be the Karta. A Karta is the caretaker of the whole family and looks after the
welfare of all the members of the family. His relationship with other members is a
relationship of trust and confidence. Now when a major step towards ending gender
discrimination and to stop the gender-bias prevalent in families and to improve adverse
condition of women in society has been taken in the form of The Hindu Succession
1
Suraj Bunsi Koer v Sheo Persad 1880 ILR 5 Cal 148.
2
Mulla, Principles of Hindu Law § 236.

3
Amendment Act, 2005. This amendment has conferred equal property rights on daughters as
well. Now the daughters by birth will acquire rights over coparcenary property. Earlier
women were not included as coparcenary members, and according to the Hindu sages only a
coparcener can become a karta, and therefore they could not be the Karta. But now because
of the changed position of daughters as coparceners the situation is in favour of possibility of
women becoming Karta. There are diverse views of the Courts on this point. In our project,
we have tried to explain the position of women in relation to that of a Karta; we have also, by
going through case laws and judicial pronouncements.”

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. A co-parcenery is a narrow body of
persons within a joint family. It exclusively consists of male members. The last male holder
of the property is the senior most member of the family.3
“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 coparcenary 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.”

3
Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law Lectures Family Law II, 3rd Edition, Lexis Nexis

4
 • WHO CAN BE A KARTA?
• Senior Most Male Member:
It is a presumption of Hindu law, that ordinarily the senior most male member is the Karta of
the joint family. In Jandhayala Sreeamma v. Krishnavenamma4, the court held “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
Karta. However, in cases of insanity or any other disqualifications, the next senior male
member generally takes over the Karta ship. 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 coparcenary consists of uncles and nephews, or
who may be the eldest brother, if coparcenary consists of brothers.”

• Other Male Member( junior member)

In the presence of a senior male member, a junior male member cannot be the Karta.
However, if all the coparceners agree, a junior male member can be a Karta. Coparceners
may withdraw their consent at any time. "So long as the members of a family remain
undivided the senior member is entitled to manage the family properties including even
charitable property and is presumed to be the manager until the contrary is shown. But the
senior most members may give up his right of management and a junior member may be
appointed as manager." By agreement between coparceners, any junior male member can be
made by an agreement a Karta. In this case, withdrawal of consent of coparcenors can be at
any point of time. In Narendrakumar J Modi v. CIT5 it was held that “Gulabchand was
given the power to manage by Baplal because Gulabchand’s elder brother was an aged man
of 70 years. Also the father of appellant died in 1957. Therefore, 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

Earlier women were not included as coparcener members, according to the Hindu sages only
a coparcener can become a Karta, and therefore they could not be the Karta.6.

4
Jandhayala Sreeamma v Krishnavenamma AIR 1957 AP 434.
5
Narendra Kumar J Modi v CIT AIR 1976 SC 1953.
6
Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law Lectures Family Law II, 3rd Edition, Lexis Nexis.

5
“The framers of the Indian Constitution took note of the adverse and discriminatory position
of women in society and took special care to ensure that the State took positive steps to give
her equal status. Articles14, 15(2), (3), and 16 of the Constitution of India thus not only
inhibit discrimination against women but in appropriate circumstances provide a free hand to
the State to provide protective discrimination in favour of women. However, woman is
still neglected in her own natal family as well as in the family she marries into because of
blatant disregard and unjustified violation of these provisions by some of the personal law.”

Generally, female member cannot become Karta but in exceptional circumstances female also
can act as Karta. Nagpur High Court held the view that mother even though not a coparcener,
in the absence of adult male member can act as Karta. In C.P. Berai v. Laxmi Narayan7 it
was held “that a widow could be a karta in the absence of adult male members in the family.
It was said that the true test is not who transferred/incurred the liability, but whether the
transaction was justified by necessity.” However, Supreme Court later in Commissioner of
Income Tax Vs. Seth Govind Ram8, held “mother or any female member could not be Karta
of joint family and therefore cannot alienate joint family property. The above views seem to
be rigid.”

• POSITION OF KARTA
Karta is sui generis (of its own kind), the relationship between him and members is not like
principal or agent or like partners in a partnership firm. He is the head of the family and acts
on behalf of other members. He stands fiduciary relationship with other members but he is
not a trustee. Ordinarily a Karta is accountable to none. Unless charges of fraud,
misrepresentation or conversion are leveled against him. He is the master and none can
question as to what he received and what he spent. When any coparcener charges of improper
alienations made by Karta, burden of proof lies on him to prove such are malafide act of
Karta.

“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. 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. Any coparcener can at any time ask for partition.
He obtains no reward for his services and he discharges many onerous responsibilities
7
CP Berai v Laxmi Narayan AIR 1949 Nag 128.
8
Commissioner of Income Tax v Seth Govind Ram AIR 1966 SC 2.

6
towards the family and its members. His true legal position can be understood only when we
know the ambit of his powers and liabilities.”

• POWERS OF KARTA
• Power of Alienation of Joint Property
“No individual member of a coparcenary has the power to alienate joint family property
without the consent of all other members. However, the Dharma Shastra recognizes that in
some circumstances a member has the power to dispose of the joint family property.
Mitakshara Law explicitly states wherein even one person who is capable may conclude a
gift, hypothecation or sale of immovable property, if a calamity i.e. Apatakale (LEGAL
NECESSITY) affecting the whole family requires it. The support of the family i.e.
Kutumbarthe (BENEFIT OF ESTATE) renders it necessary. Indispensable duties i.e.
Dharmamarthe (RELIGIOUS OBLIGATION) such as obsequies of the father or the like
made is unavoidable.
The Karta only and no other member can exercise this power. The joint family property
cannot be alienated for any reason other than the following three:”
I. Legal Necessity: Legal necessity can be varied and it is difficult to define it precisely.
Necessity should not be understood in sense that it is indispensable but what would be
proper and reasonable. It includes all things deemed necessary for family members.
For eg- food, shelter, clothing, marriage, medical care, payments of debts etc. It,
however, needs to be shown that the alienation of the property was for the satisfaction
of such a need. In Dev Kishan v. Ram Kishan9, “the Karta, under the influence of one
other member of a Joint Hindu Family mortgaged and sold the property for the illegal
purpose of marriage of two minor daughters. Their contention was that the act was
done in furtherance of a legal necessity. The court, in this case, held that the act was
done in furtherance of an unlawful purpose, as the act was in contravention of the
Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, hence, it was not a lawful alienation.”
II. Benefit of Estate: “Anything done for the benefit of the Hindu joint family property
constitutes a benefit of the estate. One view, which is no longer valid, included
defensive construction. The Supreme Court in Balmukund case has observed that
benefit of estate also includes anything done for positive benefit. 10 The test is a thing
that a prudent person would do for his property.”

9
Dev Kishan v Ram Kishan AIR 2002 Raj 370.
10
Balmukund v Kamlavati AIR 1964 SC 1385.

7
 III. Religious or pious duty: Religious obligations consists performance of acts which
are of a religious, pious, or charitable nature. This includes all indispensable duties
like sradha, upananyana and the performance of any other necessary sanskars, for the
furtherance of which, the karta may alienate the whole property. The power of
alienation for charitable or pious purposes is only a portion of the property.

“Alienation for the above three purposes is binding on all family members, even minors.” 11
Alienation for any purpose other than the three stated above is not void. It is voidable at the
instance of any one of the coparceners. The Guwahati High Court in case of CIT v
Gangadhar Sikaria Family Trust12 held that “the transfer not for the purpose of legal
necessity or benefit of the estate is voidable, not void ab-initio.”
• Powers of management:
“As the head of the family, karta’s powers of management are almost absolute. He may
manage the property of the family, the family affairs, the business the way he likes, he may
mismanage also, nobody can question his mismanagement.” He is not liable for positive
failures. He may discriminate between the members of the family. “But he cannot deny
maintenance /use/occupation of property to any coparcener. The ever-hanging sword of
partition is a great check on his absolute powers. Probably, the more effective check is the
affection and the natural concern that he has for the members of the family and the complete
faith and confidence that members repose in him.”
• Right to income:
It is the natural consequence of the joint family system that the whole of the income of the
joint family property, whosoever may collect them, a coparcener, agent or a servant, must be
handled over to the karta .It is for the karta to allot funds to the members and look after their
needs and requirements. The Karta controls the expenditure of the funds. “The scope of his
power to spend extends only to family purposes, i.e., management, protection of estate and
residence, realization, maintenance, marriage, education, religious ceremonies, etc.”13
• Right to representation:
“The karta of a joint family represents the family in all matters- legal, social, religious.” 14 He
acts on behalf of the family and such acts are binding on the family. The joint family has no
corporate existence; it acts in all matters through its karta. The karta can enter into any
11
VVV Ramaraju v KoradaMalleswaraRao (1999) 2 HLR 257 (AP).
12
CIT v Gangadhar Sikaria Family Trust (1983) 142 ITR 677.
13
Narendra Nath Roy v Abani Kumar Roy AIR 1938, Cal 78.
14
Singriah v Ramanuja AIR 1959 Mys 239 (DB).

8
transaction on behalf of the family and that would be binding on the joint family. In Dr.
Gopal v. Trimbak15 court held that “a manager/karta could contract debts for carrying on a
family business/ thereby render the whole family property including the shares of the other
family members liable for the debt. Merely because one of the members of the joint family
also joins him, it does not alter his position as a karta.”
• Power of Compromise:
The karta has power to compromise all disputes relating to family property or their
management. He can also compromise family debts and other transactions. 16 “However, if his
act of compromise is not bonafide, it can be challenged in a partition. He can also
compromise a suit pending in the court and will be binding on all the members.”
• Power to refer a dispute to arbitration:
The karta has power to refer any dispute to arbitration and the award of the arbitrators will be
binding on the joint family if valid in other respects.
• Karta’s power to contract debts and enter into contracts.
“The karta of a non-business joint family also has the power to contract debts for family
purposes. When a creditor seeks to make the entire joint family liable for such debts, it is
necessary for him to prove that the loan was taken for family purposes, or in the ordinary
course of business or that he made proper and bona fide enquiries as to the existence of need.
The expression family purpose has almost the same meaning as legal necessity, benefit of
estate, or performance of indispensable and pious duties. The karta has an implied authority
to contract debts and pledge the credit of the family for ordinary purpose of family business.
Such debts incurred in the ordinary course of business are binding on the entire family.”
The karta has the power to enter into contracts and such contracts are binding on the family.
It is also now settled that a contract, otherwise specifically enforceable, is also specifically
enforceable against the family.
• Loan on Promissory note: -
When the karta of a joint family takes a loan or executes a promissory note for family
purposes or for family business, the other members of the family may be sued on the note
itself even if they are not parties to the note. Their liability is limited to the share in the joint
family property17, though the karta is personally liable on the note.

15
Dr Gopal v Trimbak AIR 1953 Nag 195.
16
Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law Lectures Family Law II, 3rd Edition, Lexis Nexis
17
Krishnanand v Raja Ram Singh AIR 1922 All 116.

9
 • CONCLUSION
Analysing 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 them.

“The reasoning, which was earlier given by the courts including the apex court of the country
that woman, cannot become a karta because a karta has to necessarily be a coparcener. Now,
with the amendment of 2005, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 gives equal rights
to daughters in the Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property as the sons have. Even now the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not accept a woman as karta in normal circumstances. She
can be a karta only in 2 certain special circumstances: - in the absence of male members, and
in case there are minor male members in the family, which is prescribed by the ancient Hindu
law, the dharmashatras.”

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. For that there must be a positive change in
social mores. The law would always be a step behind. Women have to become aware that the
law does not discriminate against them in property matters and that they cannot be short-
changed any more. In many cases, justice is denied simply because of lack of awareness.

“In fact, woman should be empowered and enabled to demand their rights, wherever they are
sought to be denied. The government should take steps to uplift the position of woman in
other personal laws also.”

However, “her position as defacto manager was recognized when mothers acted as guardians
of their minor sons after the death of their husbands, the dejure conferment of the right eluded
her. The law commission also has rightly observed that although the Hindu Succession
Amendment Act, 2005 has conferred upon the daughter of a coparcener status but there is
still a reluctance to making her a Karta. This seems to be patently unfair as women are
proving themselves equal to any task. Since they can act as coparcenaries then they must also
be given the powers of Karta.”

10
 • BIBLIOGRAPHY
• BOOKS
1) R.K. AGRAWAL, HINDU LAW, Central Law Agency 23rd ed, 2007.
2) Dr. PARAS DIWAN, FAMILY LAW, Allahabad Law Agency 10th ed, 2013
3) Law Commission of India report on ‘Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms
under the Hindu Law’, May 2000.

4) Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law Lectures Family Law II, 3rd Edition, Lexis
Nexis.
5) Mulla, Principles of Hindu Law, 17th Edition, Vol.1, Butterworths India.

• WEBSITES
1) http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mag/2005/09/25/stories/2005092500050100.htm
2) http://www.millagazette.com/subscribe.htm
3) http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles

• ARTICLES

1) Ankita Gupta, Karta/Manager, and His Legal Position: Socio-Legal Study, available
at http://www.manupatra.com/roundup/341/Articles/Karta%20and%20his%20Legal
%20Position.pdf
• CASES
Balmukund v Kamlavati AIR 1964 SC 1385.............................................................................7
CIT v Gangadhar Sikaria Family Trust (1983) 142 ITR 677....................................................8
Commissioner of Income Tax v Seth Govind Ram AIR 1966 SC 2...........................................6
CP Berai v Laxmi Narayan AIR 1949 Nag 128........................................................................6
Dev Kishan v Ram Kishan AIR 2002 Raj 370...........................................................................7
Dr Gopal v Trimbak AIR 1953 Nag 195...................................................................................8
Jandhayala Sreeamma v Krishnavenamma AIR 1957 AP 434.................................................5
Krishnanand v Raja Ram Singh AIR 1922 All 116...................................................................9
Narendra Kumar J Modi v CIT AIR 1976 SC 1953..................................................................5
Narendra Nath Roy v Abani Kumar Roy AIR 1938, Cal 78......................................................8
Singriah v Ramanuja AIR 1959 Mys 239 (DB).........................................................................8
Suraj Bunsi Koer v Sheo Persad 1880 ILR 5 Cal 148...............................................................3
• VVV Ramaraju v KoradaMalleswaraRao (1999) 2 HLR 257 (AP). 8

11