Dr.B.R. AMBEDKAR LAW COLLEGE BAGHLINGAMPALLY, HYDERABAD MOOT COURT PROBLEM MrKantilal Agarwal was a successful businessman. He had acquired different immovable ‘and moveable properties in and around Hyderabad. He passed away in the year 1985 leaving ‘behind his sons and daughter viz., Shyam Agarwal, Sunil Agarwal and Susheela Agarwal respectively. After the death of Mr.Kantilal Agarwal, Mr.Shyam Agarwal became the Karta of the family However, due to his ill health, he could not continue as Karta for long and subsequently nway in 1995, N-Shyom Agewal vine iesuelese, Ms,Susheela Agarwal died in a road accident in the year 1998. Thereafter, Mr-Sunil Agarwal became the head of HUF. The family consisted of his wife Rama Agarwal, sons Somesh Agarwal, Suresh Agarwal, Sailesh Agarwal and daughter Geetha Agarwal. Somesh Agarwal and his wife Sarika Agarwal died leaving behind their son ‘and daughter Ramesh Agarwal and Ramya Agarwal respectively. Suresh Agarwal was essed with a son and daughter viz., Kiran Agarwal and Keerthi Agarwal. Sailesh Agarwal had a son by name Kalyan Agarwal. Getha Agarwal too had a son called Arjun. Sunil Agarwal was running a Non-Banking Finance Company by name SR Agarwal NBFC Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad (2) SR Agarwal Film Studio extending to acres 200, at Madhapur, Hyderabad and (3) a Farm House of 100 acres at Gandipet, Hyderabad. y Sunil Agarwal alienated 15.00 acres by way of gift in favour of Ramya Agarwal (daughter of predeceased son Somesh Agarwal) and executed a WILT, alienating 15.00 aeres of farm lund in favour of Ramesh Agarwal Sailesh Agarwal studied medicine and obtained MD in Cardiology at the expenses of joint family property. He married Sanjana, a Neurologist and he also set-up a nursing home and property, he kept had flourishing practice. Although he studied with expenses of joint fami his earnings for himself which made other family members unhappy. In the year 2003, Rama Agarwal died and subsequently Sunil Agarwal also passed away in 2005. After the death of Sunil Agarwal, Suresh Agarwal being elder sone erases) assumed the position of “Karta” of Joint Hindu Family * nn i ie |‘After assuming the position of Karta of the HUF, Suresh Agarwal sold 30 acres of farm ural Ind for $0 Crows to one Mr.Ani Kapoor o renovate fm sao ot Madhapar, 0 perform se mans ff Resch. 16 yeardpe also mortgaged shares of SR. “Agarwel NBFC for R55 Crores tothe State Bak of Hyderabad, Baghlingamplly Branch, Hyderabad. Geetha Agarwal was not happy with the decisions being taken by Suresh ‘Agarwal and she questioned Fim about the alienation which Suresh Agarwal ignored, Aggrieved by the acts of'Suresh Agarwal, Geetha Agarwal filed a Suit before Di Courtpraying (1) to declare her as “Karta” of Hindu Joint Family, being eldest coparcener as oyp-er Hind Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005; (2) She challenged () the validity of git and CUWILL made by Sunil Agarwal in favour of Ramya Agarwal and Ramesh Agarval ~ respectively (i) the sale of 30 ares of farm agricultural land for Rs 80 crores fo one Mini Kapoor who defended that the'sale vas to augment Hindu Joint Family business (ii) the mortgage of shares to State Bank of Hyderabad,BaghlingampallyBranch, Hyderabad to perform the mariage of Ramya Agarwal, the SBH defended that the mortgage was (0 perform the marrage of a family member which is the part welfare of members of Joint, Hindu Family and (3) she also prayed thatthe income of Seilesh Agarwal be included in joint family property. Yap te % ‘The District Court dismissed the Suit holding that Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 ereates equal rights to women on equal footing with @ son as coparcener but could not make the female “Karta” of HUF, Agerieved by the judgement of District Court Mrs.Geetha Agarwal preferred an Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. The High Court set-aside the judgement of District Court and held that she could be Karta of Joint Hindu Family as per Hindu Suecession(Amendment) Act, 2008. ‘Aggrieved by the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, the respondents preferred this ‘Appeal before the Hon"ble Moot Court ‘To determine the lis inthis case the following issues are framed: (1) Assuming the existence of HUF, whether Geetha Agarwal is a coparcener? (2) Its, whether she is legally ented tobe te “Karta‘of the HUF afer the enactmelt of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (3) Whether the gift made in favour of Ramya Agarwal is valid? (4) Whether the WILL made in favour of Ramesh Agarwal is vaild?