Dr.

Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University,

Lucknow
2018

Final Draft
On
Topic:
KARTA IN MITAKSHARA HINDU JOINT FAMILY
In
Subject: FAMILY LAW-II

Under the guidance of: Submitted by:

DR. Shakuntla Sangam Anushthan Tripathi

(Asst. Professor) EnRoll No. 160101040

B.A LL.B(Hons.)

pg. 1
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First of all, I would like to thank my teacher of the subject “tort”, Ms. Ankita yadav, for

providing every bit of help and also showing the way in which to proceed and how to go

about the project. I would also like to thank my parents, friends and others who helped me

immensely at every step and gave every possible bit of help that I needed in preparing the

project and making it look presentable in a good way. I would also like to thank the library

staff of RMLNLU who provided me with books that I needed in making and preparing the

project and other pieces of information and help that was required. At last I would like to

sincerely thank God who gave me the much needed strength and power to go ahead with the

project and make it in a presentable way.

Anushthan

pg. 2
KARTA
Brief Introduction:
In hindu joint family, the Karta or manager, occupies pivotal position. So unique is his
position that there is no comparable office or institution in any other system of the world. His
position is sui generis. Though he is a person with limited powers, yet within the ambit of his
sphere, he possesses such vast powers. The term ‘Karta’ has been defined in the case of Suraj
Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Persad.

Who can be the Karta?

Senior most male member—Ordinarily, the senior most male member is the Karta of the
joint family.1 He does not owe his position to the agreement or consent of other coparceners.
He is entitled to Kartaship because he is the senior most. So long as he is alive, may be aged,
infirm, or ailing, he is entitled to Kartaship.2
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 uncle and nephews , or who
may be the eldest brother , if coparcenary consists of brothers.
Junior male members.—It is by understanding or agreement among coparceners that a
junior male member can be a Karta.3 A junior male member of Hindu Undivided Family
(HUF) was realising rent, he filed a suit for eviction, the tenant cannot question his locus
standi or capacity to file a suit.4 Coparceners may withdraw their consent at any time.
More than one Karta – There can be more than one Karta.
Female members as Karta –At one time, the Nagpur High Court held the view that mother,
though not a coparcener, can be the Karta in the absence of adult male members. The
supreme court in Commr. Of Income Tax v. Seth Govind Ram,5 after reviewing the
authorities, took the view that mother or any other female could not be Karta. This is in
accordance with Hindu Law.

1
Shreeama v. Krishnavenanama, AIR 1957 AP 434; Ram v. Khira, AIR 1971 Pat 286;
2
Man v. Gaini, ILR (1918) 40 All 77.
3
Narendra Kumar v. Commissioner Income Tax, AIR 1976 1953.
4
M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. V. Santokh Singh , AIR 2008 SC 673
5
AIR 1966 SC 24

pg. 3
Position of the Karta
The position of Karta is sui generis. The relationship between him and other members is not
that of principal and agent or of partners. As the head of the family, he acts on behalf of other
members, but he is not a partner, as his powers are almost unlimited. He is the master of the
grand show of the joint family and manages all its affairs and its business. His powers of
management are very wide and almost totalitarian. Though he stands in fiduciary relationship
with other members, he is not a trustee. Ordinarily, he is accountable to none. Unless charges
of misappropriation, fraud or conversion are levelled against him, he is the master and no one
can question him as to what he received and spent. So long as he manages the affairs of the
family, he is not bound to save , economise or invest. In short, he is not liable for his positive
failures, such as failure to invest, to prepare accounts or to save money. He is not bound to
pay the income of joint family in any fixed proportion to other members. Even if he enters
into an agreement and makes any such arrangement, he can repudiate it with impunity. He is
not bound to treat all the members impartially; he may discriminate one against other.

However despotic his powers may be, despot he can’t be. After all. He is a person of limited
powers. He has liabilities towards the members. Any coparcener can, at any time ask for
partition.
He obtains no reward for his services and he discharges many onerous responsibilities
towards the family and its members. His true legal position can be understood only when we
know the ambit of his powers and liabilities.

KARTA’S LIABILITIES-
Karta’s liabilities are numerous and multifarious. He is responsible to maintain all the
members of the family. If he improperly excludes any member from maintenance or does not
properly maintain them, he can be sued for the same as well as for arrears of maintenance. He
is also responsible for the marriage of all unmarried members. This responsibility has been
particularly emphasized in respect of daughters. If partition suit is filed, he has to prepare
accounts. He represents the family. He is its sole representative vis-a -vis all outsiders and in
that capacity, he has to discharge many responsibilities and liabilities on behalf of his family.
He has to pay taxes and other dues on behalf of the family and he can be sued for all his
dealings on behalf of the family with outsiders.

pg. 4
Powers of Karta
Karta’s powers are vast and limitations are few. The ambit of his powers may be considered
under the two heads :
(a) Power of alienation of joint family property,
(b) Other powers.
In the former case, his powers are limited. In the latter case, his powers are very large,
almost absolute. Here we would discuss his other powers-

Powers of management—Karta’s powers of management are almost absolute. He may

manage the family affairs and family property and business the way he likes; he may
mismanage, no one can question his management. He has no obligation to save or
economise, no obligation to invest funds or to invest them properly. He may discriminate
between the members of the family; to some he may give more to spend , to some less;
some may be given higher education, while others may be given only primary education.
To some he may allot a bigger portion of the house to live in, to some less. But he cannot
deny maintenance or use and occupation of property to other members. The ever hanging
sword of partition is a great check on his absolute powers. The other, and probably 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 joint family system that all the income
of the joint family property should be brought to the common chest. All incomes of the
joint family property, whosoever, may collect them, a coparcener, agent or a servant must
be handed over to the Karta, unless the Karta has specifically allotted income of a
particular property to a member. No member of the joint family is entitled to any definite
share of the income of the joint family property or business. It is for the Karta to allot
funds to the members and to look after their needs and requirements. So long as family
remains joint, no member can ask for any specified share in the income.

Right to representation-The Karta represents the family in all matters, legal, social and
religious. He acts on behalf of the family and his acts are binding on the entire joint
family. The Karta can enter into any transaction on behalf of the family and it will be
binding on the joint family.6 Association of another in the transaction does not alter the
position of the Karta or the binding character of the transaction. He represents the family

6
Radhakrishandas v. Kuluram, AIR 1967 SC 574

pg. 5
 in suits and other legal proceedings.7The joint family shall be bound by a decree or order
passed in legal proceeedings.

Power of compromise-The Karta has power to compromise all disputes relating to the
family property or their management. He can also compromise a suit pending in a court
and it will be binding on all the members, though a minor coparcener may take advantage
of O. 32, Rule 7, CPC which lays down that in case one of the parties to the suit is a
minor, the compromise must be approved by the court. He can also compromise family
debts, and other transactions. However, if his act of compromise is not bona fide, it can be
challenged in a petition.8 The Karta has no right to give up a substantial portion of a debt
due to the family merely out of charity or sympathy.

Power to refer a dispute to arbitration—The Karta has power to refer to any dispute to
arbitration and the award of the arbitration will be binding on the joint family. 9

Power of acknowledgement—The Karta has power to acknowledge on behalf of the

family any debt due to the family. He has also the power to pay interest on a debt or to
make part payment of the principal so that a fresh period of limitation may start.10 The
Karta has no power to acknowledge a time barred debt.

Power to enter into contracts—The Karta has 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.11

Loan on promissory note—When the Karta of the family takes a loan for family
purposes or for family business and executes a promissory note for the same, the other
members of the family may be sued on the note itself even if they are not parties to the
note; their liabilities are limited to their share in the joint family property, though the
Karta is personally liable on the note. This distinction between liability on the note and
liability on the debt is very material. If liability is on the note, the consideration will be
presumed, if liability is on the debt, it would be necessary to prove that the debt was taken
for a purpose binding on the family.12 When a promissory note is in favour of the Karta
and his sons, the Karta alone can sue on the note for the recovery of the debt.

7
Amrit v. Suresh, AIR 1970 SC 5;
8
Nathathambi v. Vijaya , (1972) 2 MLJ 535
9
Jagannath v. Mannulal, (1894) 16 All 231
10
Section 21 , Limitation Act.
11
Bhagirath v. Bhagwan , AIR 1962 Pat 391
12
Kakuram v. Kurra Subba Rao, AIR 1949 FC 95

pg. 6
Power of the Karta to Gift Property

It is a commonly known fact that a karta may have a superior managerial authority but he
cannot gift away family property unless there is a legal compulsion involved or for religious
purposes etc.

Movable Property as gifts

The father or the Karta has the authority to gift ancestral joint family property to sons,
daughters etc. as a matter of affection wherein the gift is in furtherance of “indispensible acts
of duty, and family, relief from distress and so forth”. Such gifts do have limitation like a gift
cannot entail the whole property to be given to one particular member as it cannot be then
upheld as “gift of affection”.

Immovable Property as gifts

The karta does posses the capacity to gift an individual, owing to few restrictions, for pious
purposes. It was laid down in Guramma v. Mallapa that a father can gift his daughter a
portion of an immoveable property if it conforms to the reasonability criteria, looking at the
properties which are owned by the family. Though, it is not acceptable for a husband to gift
any such property to his spouse under the clause of “Pious Purposes”.

Gift to Strangers

The Karta only holds the right to gift properties to family members under some conditions
and strangers cannot be a recipient of such a gift under no circumstances. Such a gift, if
made, shall be deemed to be void ab initio.

Power of Alienation

Neither the karta or any other co-parcener has the right to alienate the joint property of the
family but in exceptional situations wherein the alienation becomes binding upon all the
members of the family. The Dharmashastra recognizes this power of the karta to alienate the
property but under some specific situations only. They have been stated below:

 Apatkale (Necessity in legal terms)

 Kutumbarthe (Estate’s benefit)
 Dharmamarthe (Obligations of religious nature)
 Necessity in legal terms

The term legal necessity does not hold any precise definition due to the varied no. of cases
that are seen and it being extremely difficult to explain it in exact terms. Still, under
interpretation it can be stated that the legal necessity of a family is with regard to the
necessities of a family and the alienation being in requirement of that need.

 Estate’s benefit

This is also a broad criterion for the alienation to take place. In it, the benefits which the
estate gains through any such specified alienation by the Karta is to be considered as valid.

pg. 7
Such beneficial contracts of property alienation are encouraged and the karta does hold the
right to go forward under his prudent discretion.

Broadly speaking, benefit of estate means anything, which is done for the benefit of the joint
family property. There are two views as to it. One view is that only construction, which is of
defensive character, can be a benefit of estate. This view seems to be no longer valid. The
other view is that anything done which is of positive benefit, will amount to benefit of estate.
The test is that anything which a prudent person can do in respect of his own property. It was
re-iterated through various case laws that if the property owned by the specific joint family is
sold by the karta due to a valid legal necessity and also that the price in return was also
reasonable, just the fact that a portion of the price was not considered to have been not
applied for the purpose of necessity, cannot render the whole mechanism invalid.

Considering a limitation in the matter, through this paper, it has been analyzed that even
though the Karta holds supreme managerial and alienation powers in the family but if he gets
into a contract where it is apparent that the family cannot complete its obligations in
monetary terms, the liability cannot be shifted to ancestral property sale. Nevertheless, if
there is an acquisition made by the Karta on behalf of the joint family even through the loss
of a portion of an ancestral property, it is binding upon the minor members of the family too
and they cannot impeach this contract for which the benefit has been enjoyed, upon attaining
majority.

Also, it is a cardinal rule that the actions of the karta have to be justified with the clause of
necessity or benefit to the family for these members to be bound by the actions of the Karta.
Such alienation cannot be considered to be for the purpose of a legal necessity “if the legal
remedy to recover the debt has become time-barred.” He can alienate the property with his
own discretion due to some necessity or through the normal process of having a totality in
family assent towards such alienation.

pg. 8
CONCLUSION
As already mentioned, the karta in a Hindu joint family holds quite an extra-ordinary position
with reference to its understanding and complexity. This sui generis nature of the system
holds an important position in understanding how a joint family functions with reference to
the numerous duties and varied works the individual members of a family are involved, being
clubbed together in a single household. The concept of Karta has an origin that dates
centuries back and it still holds its ground due its various functional elements. One family
that entails a no. of members who live together and hold joint property, necessarily require a
Karta to boost the cohesive aspect of such a family with reference to its dealings and
ventures.

The idea of a karta has been diluted in present times to maintain reasonability in the decisions
and judgments that a karta binds the joint family to. There are no absolute powers as that of
the previous “patriarch” as various legal remedies are available and thus, the managerial
system of having a central head works in varied mannerisms.

pg. 9
 BOOKS
 Dr. Paras Diwan, Family Law, (9th Edn., Allahabad Law Agengy, 2009)
 Dr. T.V. Subba Rao and Dr. Vijendra Kumar, Family Law in India, (9th Edn.,
S. Gogia and Company, 2007)

E-ARTICLES
 Online Family Law II Notes at <http://mayank-
lawnotes.blogspot.in/2007/01/family-law-ii.html>

pg. 10