Family Law

Manu Gupta v. Sujata Sharma

RFA(OS) 13/2016

Facts

D.R. Gupta had constituted an HUF known as D.R. Gupta & Sons HUF, comprising property at University Road, Delhi, shares, deposits and bank accounts.
Following the deaths of the earlier male Kartas, Sujata Sharma claimed the position of Karta.
She was:
the eldest surviving member of the relevant family;
a daughter of one of the earlier coparceners;
a coparcener by virtue of amended Section 6 HSA.
Manu Gupta, a younger male coparcener, opposed her claim.
He argued that:
she had married and joined her husband’s family;
she had not participated in management of the HUF;
her father had died before the 2005 amendment;
Hindu custom recognised only men as Kartas;
he had in fact managed the properties and dealt with public authorities.
A Single Judge declared Sujata Sharma the Karta in 2015.
Manu Gupta appealed to a Division Bench.

Whether an eldest female coparcener can become Karta of an HUF.
Whether marriage or lack of prior managerial participation disqualifies her.
Whether a younger male becomes Karta merely because he has performed managerial functions.
What was the effect of the family’s earlier severance and settlement?

Amended Section 6 HSA gives a daughter:
coparcenary status by birth;
the same rights in coparcenary property as a son;
the same liabilities.
The historical bar against a woman becoming Karta existed primarily because women were not coparceners.
Once that disqualification was removed, no independent rule prevented the senior female coparcener from becoming Karta.
Kartaship is ordinarily based upon:
coparcenary status; and
seniority.
Actual performance of managerial functions does not by itself confer legal status as Karta.
A married daughter does not cease to be a coparcener in her natal HUF.
Partition may cause severance of joint status even without physical division by metes and bounds.

The Court rejected the argument that amended Section 6 gave women property rights but not managerial rights.
Equality as a coparcener would be incomplete if the daughter received:
liabilities;
ownership rights;
partition rights, but remained permanently barred from management solely because of sex.
Sujata’s marriage did not sever her legal relationship with her natal coparcenary.
Nor did non-participation in earlier management destroy her statutory seniority.
Manu Gupta’s collection of rent, filing of documents and correspondence with public authorities established that he acted as a manager or representative.
It did not make him Karta in preference to a legally senior coparcener.
The Court nevertheless found that the original HUF had undergone severance:
the branches received defined one-fifth shares;
the properties were mutated in the heirs’ names;
a 1999 settlement further recognised divided shares.
Physical partition had not been completed, and the property continued to appear as an HUF in revenue or tax records.
Someone therefore remained necessary to represent the family before competent authorities.
As the senior eligible coparcener, Sujata was the proper person to perform that representative role.

Manu Gupta’s appeal was dismissed.
The Delhi High Court affirmed that an eldest female coparcener may become Karta.
Marriage and previous non-participation in management were not disqualifications.
Sujata Sharma was declared Karta for representing D.R. Gupta & Sons HUF before the competent authorities.
Use this case for: a daughter possessing coparcenary status can become Karta on the same principles of seniority applicable to male coparceners.