Family Law

M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF)

(2008) 2 SCC 728

Facts

Dr Santokh Singh HUF owned premises in Panchsheel Park, New Delhi.
The premises were leased to M/s Nopany Investments.
Jasraj Singh instituted eviction proceedings describing himself as the Karta of the HUF.
The tenant challenged his authority.
It argued that:
Jasraj was not the senior-most member;
his elder brother, Dhuman Raj Singh, was alive;
therefore, Jasraj could not act as Karta or institute proceedings for the family.
Evidence showed that:
the elder brother had lived permanently in the United Kingdom for a long time;
he was unable to manage the HUF property in India;
he had executed a power of attorney in Jasraj’s favour;
no other family member objected to Jasraj’s management;
Jasraj had regularly collected rent from the tenant.
The Supreme Court considered whether a junior family member could validly act as Karta in such circumstances.

Whether a junior member may act as Karta while a senior member is alive.
Whether the prolonged absence and implied relinquishment by the senior member justified Jasraj’s management.
Whether the tenant could challenge Jasraj’s status after recognising him as manager and paying rent to him.

Ordinarily, management of a Mitakshara HUF belongs to:
the father, while he acts as family head; or
the senior-most competent coparcener.
A junior coparcener may act as Karta in exceptional circumstances, including where:
the senior Karta is unavailable;
the senior member expressly relinquishes management;
relinquishment arises by necessary implication;
the senior member’s whereabouts are unknown;
the senior member is in a remote place and unlikely to return within a reasonable time;
urgent necessity requires another member to protect the family.
The validity of management depends upon practical family circumstances, not merely formal seniority.
Conduct and acquiescence of other family members are relevant.
A third party that has consistently recognised a person as manager may be prevented from later denying that authority.

Dhuman Raj Singh was not temporarily away on an ordinary journey.
He had been permanently settled in the United Kingdom and could not practically manage the Delhi property.
His power of attorney in favour of Jasraj showed:
recognition of Jasraj’s authority;
an express or implied relinquishment of day-to-day management.
Other HUF members did not object to:
Jasraj collecting rent;
issuing notices;
representing the family.
The family’s conduct therefore demonstrated acceptance of his managerial position.
The tenant had also dealt with Jasraj as the person representing the landlord-HUF.
It had paid rent to him and recognised his authority over the tenancy.
It could not accept his authority when convenient and reject it only when eviction proceedings were initiated.
The exceptional rule permitting a junior member to act was designed precisely for such situations.
Insisting that an unavailable senior member personally manage the estate would:
paralyse the HUF;
expose its property to loss;
defeat the practical object of the Karta institution.
Jasraj was therefore competent to represent the HUF and institute the proceedings.

The suit filed by Jasraj Singh on behalf of the HUF was maintainable.
A junior member may act as Karta where the senior member is unavailable or has relinquished management expressly or impliedly.
The elder brother’s permanent residence abroad and power of attorney justified Jasraj’s position.
The tenant was also estopped from denying the authority it had previously recognised.
Use this case for: exceptional circumstances in which a junior coparcener may act as Karta of an HUF.