Supreme Court: After Intestate Succession under Hindu Succession Act, One Co-Heir Cannot Alienate Shares Of Others Acting As Karta

Accordingly, in the context of Section 8, the question of karta-ship ordinarily does not arise merely because the property has come from a paternal ancestor. The heirs succeed as tenants-in-common with definite and separate shares, and the property devolves by succession rather than by survivorship.

8. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, it has been held that upon the death of Dajiba, Darubai and her four step daughters became tenants-in-common with definite and separate shares, to the tune of 1/5th each. When each of them have separate and identifiable shares, in the considered view of this Court, there arises no question of the Defendant acting as karta to sell off a part of the property on account of legal necessity, be it for whatever reason, for she only had the right to do whatever she wished with the 1/5th share of the property that vested with her.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8358 of 2026 

Decided On: 01.06.2026

Darubai and Ors. Vs. Kamalabai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0605/2026

Print Page

Under which circumstances coparceners can challenge alienation of immovable property done by karta of joint hindu family?

  It is trite law that Karta/Manager of a joint family property may alienate joint family property only in three situations, namely, (i) legal necessity (ii) for the benefit of the estate and (iii) with the consent of all the coparceners of the family. In the instant case, the alienation of the joint family property under Ex.P1 was not with the consent of all the coparceners. It is settled law that where an alienation is not made with the consent of all the coparceners, it is voidable at the instance of the coparceners whose consent has not been obtained (See: Thimmaiah and Ors. Vs. Ningamma and Anr; (2000) 7 SCC409). Therefore, the alienation of the joint family property in favour of the second defendant was voidable at the instance of the plaintiff whose consent had not been obtained as a coparcener before the said alienation.{Para 12}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Coram:  S. ABDUL NAZEER; KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2582 OF 2010;

Dated: April 19, 2022

 K.C. LAXMANA Vs K.C. CHANDRAPPA GOWDA & ANR.

Author: S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether Karta Of Hindu Undivided Family Can Alienate HUF Property Even If Minor Has Undivided Interest In It?

The position on the rights of a Karta vis-à-vis an HUF property is well settled. This Court in Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar1 has held that the Karta has the right to sell/dispose of/alienate an HUF property, even if a minor of the family has undivided interest. The reason is that an HUF is capable of acting through its Karta or an adult member of the family in the management of the HUF property.

Thus, the father of the petitioner herein, as the Karta of the HUF, was entitled to mortgage the HUF property. The son(s) or other member(s) of the HUF need not be consenting parties to the mortgage. Post alienation, a coparcener may challenge the act of a Karta, if the alienation is not for legal necessity or for betterment of the estate, which is not the assertion established in the present case. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

 Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2147621477/2023; 

N.S. BALAJI Vs THE PRESIDING OFFICER DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL & ORS.

Coram: SANJIV KHANNA; J., S.V.N. BHATTI; J.

Dated: 03-10-2023.

Print Page

Whether Karta of a joint Hindu family can gift ancestral property in favour of a third party out of love and affection?

 In the instant case, it is admitted by the second defendant that the settlement deed dated 22.03.1980 (Ex.P1) is, in fact, a gift deed which was executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant ‘out of love and affection’ and by virtue of which the second defendant was given a portion of the joint family property. It is well-settled that a Hindu father or any other managing member of a HUF has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a ‘pious purpose’ and what is understood by the term ‘pious purpose’ is a gift for charitable and/or religious purpose. Therefore, a deed of gift in regard to the ancestral property executed ‘out of love and affection’ does not come within the scope of the term ‘pious purpose’. It is irrelevant if such gift or settlement was made by a donor, i.e. the first defendant, in favour of a donee who was raised by the donor without any relationship, i.e. the second defendant. The gift deed in the instant case is not for any charitable or religious purpose.

{Para 13}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Coram:  S. ABDUL NAZEER; KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2582 OF 2010;

Dated: April 19, 2022

 K.C. LAXMANA Vs K.C. CHANDRAPPA GOWDA & ANR.

Author: S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

Print Page

Whether step mother can execute agreement of sale regarding immovable property as karta if she has inherited it alongwith her step daughters from her husband?

There is no dispute about the fact that the suit properties were the separate properties of Dajiba. After his demise somewhere

in the year 1966-67 his widow i.e. defendant no.1 and daughters,

who are the plaintiffs simultaneously succeeded to his estate in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. However, in view of provision of Section 19 of that Act, all these heirs of Dajiba would inherit as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. Once such a devolution is understood, the matter becomes clear like a day light. The very theory of existence of a karta and legal necessity presupposes that the sharers are joint, which is not the case in the matter in hand. By virtue of such mode of succession by the widow and four daughters of Dajiba receiving the suit properties as his heirs, they take their individual shares as tenants in common. In the bsence of the suit properties being joint, therefore, there was no question of the step mother - defendant no.1 acting as a manager or karta of the family. She, therefore, had no right to deal with the suit properties even for legal necessity.It has been held that under Hindu Law coparcenership is a necessary qualification for becoming a manager of joint Hindu family and since a widow cannot be a coparcener she is not legally entitled to become a manager. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

SECOND APPEAL NO.1648 OF 2005

Kamalabai  Vitthalrao Jadhav Vs Darubai W/o. Dajiba

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

Pronounced on : 31-03-2022

Print Page

Whether Karta of a joint Hindu family must obtain the permission of the court for disposal of immovable property involving an undivided interest of the minor?

 A conjoint reading of the provisions contained in sections 6, 8

and12 of the Act, indicates that natural guardian of the property of Hindu minor is enjoined to seek permission of the Court to dispose of any immovable property of the minor. However, where the minor has undivided interest in the joint family property, the previous permission of the Court under section 8 of the Act for disposing of the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is not required. In other words, in view of the provisions contained in section 6 and 12, the permission envisaged under section 8 of the Act would not be required where a joint family property is alienated by Karta involving an undivided interest of minor in the said joint Hindu family property. A useful reference in this context can be

made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri

Narayan Bal & Others vs. Sridhar Sutar & Ors (1996) 8 Supreme Court Cases 54.. The observations in paragraph 5 are material and hence, extracted below. {Para 20}

5. With regard to the undivided interest of the Hindu minor

in joint family property, the provisions afore-culled are beads

of the same string and need be viewed in a single glimpse,

simultaneously in conjunction with each other. Each

provision, and in particular Section 8, cannot be viewed in

isolation. If read together the intent of the legislative in this

beneficial legislation becomes manifest. Ordinarily the law

does not envisage a natural guardian of the undivided interest

of a Hindu minor in joint family property. The natural

guardian of the property of a Hindu minor, other than the

undivided interest in joint family property, is alone

contemplated under Section 8, where under his powers and

duties are defined. Section 12 carves out an exception to the

rule that should there be no adult member of the joint family

in management of the joint family property, in which the

minor has an undivided interest, a guardian may be

appointed; but ordinarily no guardian shall be appointed for

such undivided interest of the minor. The adult member of the

family in the management of the Joint Hindu Family property

may be a male or a female, not necessarily the Karta. The

power of the High Court otherwise to appoint a guardian, in

situations justifying, has been preserved. This is the legislative

scheme on the subject. Under Section 8 a natural guardian of

the property of the Hindu minor, before he disposes of any

immovable property of the minor, must seek permission of the

court. But since there need be no natural guardian for the

minor's undivided interest in the joint family property, as

provided under sections 6 to 12 of the Act, the previous

permission of Court u/s. 8 of disposing of undivided interest of

the minor in the joint family property is not required. The joint

Hindu family by itself is a legal entity capable of acting

through its Karta and other adult members of the family in

management of the joint Hindu family property. Thus section

8 in view of the express terms of Sections 6 and 12 , would not

be applicable where a joint Hindu family property is

sold/disposed of by the Karta involving an undivided interest

of the minor in the said joint Hindu family property. The

question posed at the outset therefore is so answered.

(emphasis supplied)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1499 OF 2021

IN

SUIT NO.108 OF 2021

Hriday Niraj Mehta  Vs. Umesh Jayantilal Mehta and Others 

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 15th FEBRUARY, 2022

Print Page

Whether son can challenge alienation of joint family property by father for legal necessity?

  Once the factum of existence of legal necessity

stood proved, then, in our view, no co-coparcener

(son) has a right to challenge the sale made by the

karta of his family. The plaintiff being a son was one of

the co-coparceners along with his father Pritam Singh.

He had no right to challenge such sale in the light of

findings of legal necessity being recorded against him.

It was more so when the plaintiff failed to prove by any

evidence that there was no legal necessity for sale of

the suit land or that the evidence adduced by the

defendants to prove the factum of existence of legal

necessity was either insufficient or irrelevant or no

evidence at all.” {Para 26} 

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7037 OF 2021

BEEREDDY DASARATHARAMI REDDY  Vs V. MANJUNATH AND ANOTHER 

Author: SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Dated: DECEMBER 13, 2021.

Print Page

Whether court can treat the tenanted property as joint family property if Karta is the tenant of said property?

 A perusal of the facts on record would show that it was a contract of tenancy entered upon by great grandfather of the plaintiff. Even if the great grandfather was maintaining the family out of the income generated from the hotel business, that itself would not make the other family members as coparceners in the hotel business. It was the contract of tenancy which was inherited by the grandfather of the plaintiff who later surrendered it in favour of the Wakf Board. The tenancy was an individual right vested with the grandfather of the plaintiff who was competent to surrender it to the landlord. The High Court has clearly erred in law by holding that since the grandfather was a tenant, the tenancy is a joint family asset. The contract of tenancy is an independent contract than the joint Hindu family business.{Para 32}

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6149 OF 2015

KIRAN DEVI  Vs THE BIHAR STATE SUNNI WAKF BOARD

& ORS.

Author: HEMANT GUPTA, J.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Basic principles which court should follow while declaring any one member of the family as a tenant

Accommodation is a serious problem facing people. Practically in every tenanted premises along with the tenant scores of other relatives reside. After the death of the tenant there is always an attempt to claim tenancy rights in the suit premises with the help of Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act. It is, therefore, for the court to find out who really can get the benefit of Section 5(11)(c). For this the court has to take into consideration various factors such as who was accepted as a tenant by the landlord, whether other members who are putting up a claim had accepted that person as a tenant or whether they had resisted the claim of that person to tenancy at any time, and in some cases wishes of the deceased tenant. In this connection it is necessary to quote the relevant observations of this court in Gool Rustomji's case (supra);

"Whenever persons who are members of the tenant's family start a scramble for the tenancy rights, in a sense the war of succession begins. Succession to the property of the deceased is generally decided by applying the rules of succession forming part of the personal law of the parties. But the law of succession is substantially modified while resolving the disputes which arise after the death of the tenant, whether statutory or contractual. If the several members, who are residing as members of the tenant's family, fail to come to an agreement, then the Court has to make the choice and declare that one amongst them will be the tenant for claiming the protection of the Rent Act. The Court will have to take into account several relevant factors including the wishes of the deceased tenant. In all such cases the Court should have regard to the paramount collective interest of the family of the deceased tenant. The Court should make the choice in such a way that the person selected to be the tenant is likely to act in the interest of the family, like the Karta of a Hindu joint family or the paterfamilias. If the Court has in mind such considerations then it is likely that the Court will select the right person for looking after the collective interest of the tenant's family after his death. In any event the Court cannot declare more than one person as the tenant under Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act."{Para 12}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 2311 of 1991

Decided On: 19.06.2003

Vimalabai Keshav Gokhale Vs.  Avinash Krishnaji Biniwale and Ors.

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to implead karta of HUF in eviction suit filed by co-owner of tenanted property?

 This, however, does not imply that for want of impleadment of

Karta, in the peculiar facts of the case, the suit is liable to be

dismissed. Indisputably, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have been impleaded

as the plaintiffs to the suit in the capacity of the legal representatives

of the deceased plaintiff No.2. The learned counsel for the respondent

Nos.2 to 4 was justified in advancing a submission that a decree for

eviction was also sought on the ground of personal bonafide

requirement of the deceased plaintiff No.2 and his daughter Anjalirespondent

No.4 herein. Thus, the respondent No.4, in the capacity of

being a co-owner, is entitled to prosecute the suit irrespective of the

Karta being brought on record.

23. The aforesaid submission is required to be considered in the

backdrop of the proposition that a co-owner is entitled to institute a

suit for eviction for and on behalf of all the co-owners, unless it is

shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to the ejectment

to the tenant. It is one thing to say that a member of the family

other than, or in the absence of, a Karta, may be permitted to

prosecute the suit on account of special circumstances of a given case.

And a completely different thing to claim that despite a Karta having

been appointed, he will not be impleaded to represent the HUF sans

the existence of special circumstances. In the latter case, the tenability

of the suit, without impleading the Karta, would be in issue.

24. Reverting to the facts of the case, as the respondent Nos.2 to 4

are already prosecuting the suit, either in the capacity of the coowner

or as the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.2 and,

at the same time, there is a cloud of doubt over the intendment of

the HUF to prosecute the suit for eviction of the tenant, especially on

account of the fact that there being material to show that a Karta has

indeed been appointed and there is an alleged non-compliance of an

order of Appellate Bench in Appeal No.306 of 2009 to bring the Karta

on record, steps will have been taken to implead the successor Karta

in the instant suit. It would be in the fitness of things to frame and

try the issue regarding the tenability of the suit, in the event of nonimpleadment

of the successor Karta. To this extent, the observations

of the Appellate Bench to the effect that the non-impleadment of the

successor Karta has no bearing whatsoever on the tenability of the

suit are unsustainable.

25. The question as to whether the HUF as such intends to

prosecute the suit for eviction is essentially for the HUF to answer. It

would be onerous for the defendants to plead and prove that the HUF

does not want to prosecute the suit. Therefore, it would be

appropriate to provide an opportunity to the HUF to make its stand

clear, if it desires to.

26. In the aforesaid peculiar circumstances, in my view, it would be

appropriate to provide an opportunity to the HUF to bring the

successor Karta on record, within a stipulated period, and, in the

event of default, frame and try the issue of tenability of the suit for

eviction at the instance of HUF, as such, without bringing Karta on

record, and plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4, in the capacity of the co-owners of

the demised premises.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 9267 OF 2019

IN

REVISION APPLICATION NO. 343 OF 2018

IN

EXHIBIT NO. 28

IN

R.A.E. SUIT NO. 119/171 OF 2011

Mrs. Madhuri Doulatram Choitram Vs  Lachmandas Tulsiram Nayar (HUF) by and through its Karta

CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J.

Pronounced on : 18th December 2019

Print Page

Whether mother can validly relinquish portion of joint family property inherited by minor daughter after death of father?

A Karta is the manager of the joint family property. He is

not the guardian of the minor members of the joint family. What

Section 6 of the Act provides is that the natural guardian of a

minor Hindu shall be his guardian for all intents and purposes

except so far as the undivided interest of the minor in the joint

family property is concerned. This would mean that the natural

guardian cannot dispose of the share of the minor in the joint

family property. The reason is that the Karta of the joint family

property is the manager of the property. However, this principle

would not apply when a family settlement is taking place between

the members of the joint family. When such dissolution takes

place and some of the members relinquish their share in favour

of the Karta, it is obvious that the Karta cannot act as the

guardian of that minor whose share is being relinquished in

favour of the Karta. There would be a conflict of interest. In

such an eventuality it would be the mother alone who would be

the natural guardian and, therefore, the document executed by

her cannot be said to be a void document. At best, it was a

voidable document in terms of Section 8 of the Act and should

have been challenged within three years of the plaintiff attaining  majority.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8642 OF 2009

M. ARUMUGAM Vs  AMMANIAMMAL 

Deepak Gupta, J.

Dated: JANUARY 8, 2020.

Print Page

Whether case against Hindu undivided family will abate on death of its Karta?

The matter can be looked at from another point of view also. Rule 10, Order 30. Civil P.C. provides that a Hindu undivided family carrying on business under any name, may be sued in such name or style as if it were a firm name, and, in so far as the nature of such case permits, all rules under Order 30 shall apply accordingly. Rule 4 of Order 30. Civil P.C. provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 45 of the Contract Act, 1872, where two or more persons may sue or be sued in the name of a firm under the foregoing provisions and any of such person dies, whether before the institution or during the pendency of any suit, it shall not be necessary to joint the legal representatives of the deceased as a party to the suit. It is not disputed that Messrs. Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand and Sons was a Joint Hindu family concern and had been sued through its Karta, Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand. In view of the said provision of Rule 4. on the death of the Karta, it was not necessary to bring on record his legal representatives because the joint Hindu family concern continues to be a party in spite of the death of the Karta. So the question of the abatement of the appeal did not arise and the name of the new Karta could be impleaded as a party any time. It is therefore, not possible to sustain the view of the learned single Judge that the appeal had abated on the death of Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand, the Karta of the joint Hindu family concern and the impugned judgment is accordingly reversed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Decided On: 21.03.1983

 Shila Wanti  Vs. R.B. Kishore Chand and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. and Satya Parkash Goyal, J.

Citation: AIR 1984 P& H 35

Print Page

Whether agreement of sale executed by karta is binding on member of joint family even if it is not executed for legal necessity?

It is submitted by learned counsel for these Defendants that, admittedly the suit property is the ancestral joint family property of Defendant No. 1, therefore Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are having coparcenary rights therein. They were minor when the agreements were executed. Hence, the burden was upon the Respondent to prove that these agreements were executed for legal necessity. However, no such case is made out or proved. Hence, these agreements cannot be binding on the shares of these defendants. To support this submission, the reliance is placed by learned counsel for these Appellants on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shrikant Trimbakrao Begade & Ors. V/s. Natthu Maroti Shivarkar (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. MANU/MH/0520/2017 : 2017(4) Mh.L.J. 590, wherein relying upon Section 243 and 244 of the Hindu Law (Mulla), it was held that, "the burden to prove the legal necessity is always on the purchaser of the joint family property". Here, in the case, according to learned counsel for the Appellants, as no such enquiry was made by the Respondent before purchase of the property to prove the existence of legal necessity for Defendant No. 1 to sell the suit land, the agreements of sale cannot be binding on the share of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and also on the share of Defendant No. 4.

61. However, in my considered opinion, this contention is also devoid of merits because, as per the legal position, the transactions entered into by the karta of the Hindu Joint Family are binding on the undivided share of the minors as well as other members of the family, not only when they are executed for the legal necessity but also for the benefit of joint family Here, in the case, on account of these agreements of sale executed by Defendant No. 1 with Respondent, Defendant No. 1 can save the surplus land held by the joint family from the clutches of ULC Act. The entire joint family is thus benefited by this transaction. Hence, these transactions bind not only Defendant No. 1 but also Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are benefited thereby.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Second Appeal No. 66 and 67 of 2003

Decided On: 08.08.2018

Madhavrao Ramchandra More  Vs.  Rajendra Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Maryadeet and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

Citation:2019(1)MhLJ 419

Print Page

Whether mother can dispose off undivided interest of minor in joint family property without permission of court?

 The principal question that has arisen in this case is as to whether the mother of the original plaintiffs could have executed the aforesaid sale-deed dated 30.03.1974 in respect of the suit property without seeking permission of the Court as contemplated under Section 8(2) of the aforesaid Act.

But since there need be no natural guardian for the minor's undivided interest in the joint family property, as provided under Sections 6 and 12 of the Act, the previous permission of the court under Section 8 for disposing of the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is not required. The joint Hindu family by itself is a legal entity capable of acting through its Karta and other adult members of the family in management of the Joint Hindu family property. Thus Section 8 in view of the express terms of Sections 6 and 12, would not be applicable where a joint Hindu family property is sold/disposed of by the Karta involving an undivided interest of the minor in the said joint Hindu family property. The question posed at the outset therefore is so answered."

12. This position of law has been followed by this Court in the case of Sandhya Rajan Antapurkar and others v. State of Maharashtra (supra), wherein it has been held as follows :-

"7. Under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father and after him the mother is natural guardian of Hindu minor in respect of minor person as well as in respect of the minor's property. The undivided interest of the minor in joint family property has been specifically excluded by this Section.

8. Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 prevents natural guardian of Hindu minor to transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor without previous permission of the Court. This restriction on the natural guardian in relation to the property of the minor applies only to the separate or absolute property of the minor. It does not include the minor's undivided share in the joint family property, as, under Section 6, there cannot be a natural guardian in respect of such property which is specifically excluded."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal (SA) No. 582 of 2006

Decided On: 04.05.2018

 Vasantrao Gulabrao Thakre Vs. Sudhakar Wamanrao Hingankar 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: 2018(5) MHLJ 121

Print Page

Whether karta of family can sell ancestral property without consent of other coparceners?

In our considered opinion, a case of legal necessity for

sale of ancestral property by the Karta (Pritam Singh) was,

therefore, made out on facts. In other words, the defendants

were able to discharge the burden that lay on them to prove

the existence of legal necessity for sale of suit land to

defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The defendants thus satisfied the

test laid down in Hindu law as explained by Mulla in Article

254 (2) read with Article 241 (a) and (g) quoted above.

12

28) Once the factum of existence of legal necessity stood

proved, then, in our view, no coparcener

(son) has a right

to challenge the sale made by the Karta of his family. The

plaintiff being a son was one of the cocoparceners

along with

his father Pritam

Singh. He had no right to challenge such

sale in the light of findings of legal necessity being recorded

against him. It was more so when the plaintiff failed to prove

by any evidence that there was no legal necessity for sale of

the suit land or that the evidence adduced by the defendants

to prove the factum of existence of legal necessity was either

insufficient or irrelevant or no evidence at all.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3264 OF 2011

Kehar Singh (D) Thr. L.Rs Vs Nachittar Kaur & Ors.

Dated: August 20, 2018

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Print Page

SHORT NOTES ON LIMITATION ACT PART 3

S 18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing:-

Acknowledgment means a definite, clear admission of existing liability.

It is not necessary that there should be promise to pay. An acknowledgment does not create any new right of action but only enlarges the time and has the effect of making a new period run from the date of acknowledgment. Under this section, an acknowledgment is not limited in respect of a debt only, it may be in respect of “any property or right” which is the subject matter of the suit. There must be an unqualified,or an admission qualified by a condition which is fulfilled.

Ingredients of S 18 and essentials of a valid acknowledgment:-

To constitute a valid acknowledgment and thus to give a fresh period of limitation under this section,the following conditions must be satisfied.

1) The acknowledgment must have been made before the expiration of the period prescribed.

2) The acknowledgment must have been made by the party against whom the right is then claimed or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability.

Print Page

Whether a party is entitled to get mesne profits in all circumstances?

It is necessary at the outset to distinguish between three types of cases in which a question of profits or mesne profits might arise. (1) Suits for ejectment or recovery of possession of immovable property from a person in possession without title, together with a claim for past or past and future mesne profits. (2) Suits for partition by one or more tenants-in-common against others with a claim for account of past or past and future profits. (3) Suits for partition by a member of a joint Hindu family with a claim for an account from the manager. In the first case, the possession of the defendants not being lawful, the plaintiff is entitled to recover "mesne profits" as defined in Section 2, Clause (12) of the Civil Procedure Code, such profits being really in the nature of damages. In the second case, the possession and receipt of profits by the defendant not being wrongful the plaintiff's remedy is to have an account of such profits making a]l just allowance in favour of the collecting tenant-in-common. In the third case, the plaintiff must take the joint family property as it exists at date of the demand for partition and is not entitled to open up past accounts or claim relief on the ground of past inequality of enjoyment of the profit, except where the manager has been guilty of fraudulent conduct or misappropriation.

Madras High Court

D. Nataraja Achari vs Balambal Ammal on 13 March, 1979

Equivalent citations: (1979) 2 MLJ 234

Author: V Ratnam

Print Page

Whether appeal filed by deceased karta of hindu undivided family is tenable?

Rule 10 of Order 30 provides that any person carrying on business in a name or style other than his own name or Hindu undivided family carrying on business under any name, may be sued in such name or style as if it were a firm name, and, insofar as the nature of such case permits, all rules under Order 30 shall apply accordingly. From bare perusal of this provision, it is clear that when a HUF is "to be sued", it may be sued in the name in which it carries business. In the present case the suit was filed against the HUF showing Kishanchand Gupta as its karta/manager and not in other name. In other words, the provision of rule 4(2) will apply only where a Hindu undivided family is carrying on business under any name, and is to be sued it could be sued in the name or style in which it carries its business. It needs to be noted that a HUF cannot appear as a HUF, and the manager/karta should, therefore, appear in his own name, though all subsequent proceedings could be continued in the name of HUF. A HUF need to be represented by its karta/manager in a suit/appeal and in the event of his death a successor karta/manager will have to represent the HUF and continue the proceedings. But, after disposal of a suit and at the time of filing an appeal if karta, who was representing the HUF in the suit dies, the successor karta will have to file the appeal. The appeal, in such eventuality cannot be filed in the name of HUF, showing the deceased karta/manager as its karta/manager. Such appeal would be a nullity. {Para 8}

Bombay High Court

Mrs.Nergish Minoo Pavri vs C/O. M/S.Bashimall Punnalal on 7 September, 2009

Bench: D.B.Bhosale

Dated : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2009.

Citation: 2010(4) BomCR 475 Bom

Print Page

Whether elder brother can be treated as karta of hindu joint family if father is alive?

The next question that arises for consideration is that
whether defendant No.1 was acting as the manager and ‘Karta’ of
the joint family. Ordinarily, the senior most male member of a
Hindu joint family, who takes up the responsibility of the joint
family property and manages it, is called the ‘Karta’ or sometimes
‘Manager’. The Manager of a Hindu joint family is called a ‘Karta’
(paragraph-234 of Mula’s Hindu Law 21st edition). Now, coming to
the case at hand, it is the admitted case of the parties that the
defendant No.1 is much older that is to say 16-17 years older than
the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 took charge of educating the
plaintiffs at Angul even during life time of their father. The plaintiffs
were allowed to stay in the suit house. It was brought out from the
mouth of defendant No.1 that he had repaid the loan of his father
by selling out property of his father at Hakimpada. The plaintiffs
also pleaded and laid evidence to establish that defendant No.1 was
managing the affairs of the family, as their father was incapable of
doing so. To establish the same, the plaintiffs examined PW-7, who
deposed that defendant No.1 was looking after them as guardian.
Defendant No.1 was even managing the affairs of the family. PW-10
(plaintiff No.1) in his evidence also supported the same and 
deposed that defendant No.1 was looking after all the affairs on
behalf of his father, who was ‘Karta’ of the joint family. The
plaintiffs also relied upon evidence of defendant No.1, who deposed
that plaintiff No.1 came to Angul in 1949-50 and plaintiff No.2
came to Angul two years thereafter. They were staying at Badagudia
Hotel. After the suit land was purchased, the defendant No.1
repaired the thatched house standing over the suit land and stayed
there with his wife and plaintiffs. He also deposed that apart from
Hindustan Hotel, he constructed seven rooms with tin roof on a
piece of leasehold land he acquired in the Angul bus stand for the
purpose of running another Hotel. As plaintiff No.1 was
unemployed and wasting his time after completion of his studies,
the defendant No.1, in order to keep him engaged, instructed him
to start a Hotel in the rooms constructed over the leasehold land.
Thus, plaintiff No.1 started the business in the name and style of
‘Jayabharat Hotel’. As plaintiff No.1 was not aware of managing
affairs of the Hotel, defendant No.1 guided him for some years in
the management of the hotel and for that purpose he (the
defendant No.1) was also maintaining the accounts of Jayabharat
Hotel. The entire family stayed in the thatched house over the suit
land till the marriage of plaintiff No.2 in the year 1970. By then,
their parents were staying at Matagajpur and they had come to
Angul to attend the marriage ceremony of plaintiff No.2. After their
parents came to Angul, the house at Matagajpur remained under 
lock and key and the defendant No.1 also allowed Aru and Karuna,
the cognates of the plaintiffs, to use the said house. He also
deposed in his evidence that he took the responsibility of educating
the plaintiffs 1 and 2 at Angul. Thus, Mr.Rath, learned counsel for
the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 submitted that defendant No.1
was the ‘Karta’ of the family and thus, the suit properties acquired
by him in the capacity of ‘Karta’ or Manager of the family, are
nothing but joint family properties.
12. Mr.Mukherji, learned counsel for defendant No.1
submitted that even if it is presumed that the defendant No.1 was
looking after the affairs of the family in some way or the other,
those are only act of generosity and kindness on the part of
defendant No.1 and cannot be regarded as his legal obligation.
Thus, he cannot be treated to be the ‘Karta’ of the family at least
during the life time of his father who died in the year 1975. Per
contra, Mr.Rath relying upon a decision in the case of
Narendrakumar J. Modi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,
Gujarat-II, Ahamedabad, reported in AIR 1976 SC 1953
submitted that a senior member may give up his right and junior
member of the family can act as the ‘Karta’ with consent of all other
members. He relied upon paragraph-10 of the said decision, which
reads as follows:-
“10. In these circumstances he appears to have
acted as the karta with consent of all the other
members. A junior member of the family could 
do so. See Mulla's Hindu Law 296, fourteenth
edn. Where occurs the following passage:
So long as the members of a family remain
undivided, the senior member of the family is
entitled to manage the family properties,
including even charitable properties and is
presumed to be the manager until the contrary
is shown. But the senior member may give up
his right of management, and a junior member
may be appointed manager."
A similar view is taken in the case of M/S Nopany Investments (P)
Ltd. vs Santokh Singh (HUF), reported in AIR 2008 SC 673. This
Court in the case of Harihar Sethi and Anr. vs Ladukishore
Sethi and Ors., reported in AIR 2002 Orissa 110 at paragraph 10
held as under:-
“However, it is no more res integra that a senior
member of the family may give up his right and
a junior member of the family can act as Karta
with consent of all the other members. In the
present case, the defendants who putforth a
claim that the plaintiff acted as Karta of the
family, though he is not the eldest member, have
totally failed to prove the said fact by adducing
cogent evidence. In the absence of any evidence,
it is not possible to accept the contention raised
by the appellants that the plaintiff, though he
was not the senior member of the family, acted
as the Karta….”
Needless to mention here that by the time of death of their father,
namely, Jayakrushna, the suit land had already been purchased
and the construction of the house was completed. Thus, it can’t be
held that the defendant No.1, as a ‘Karta’ or Manager of the family
or acting on behalf of his father, purchased the suit land and
constructed the suit house. Further, the generosity shown by the 
defendant No.1, as discussed above, cannot lead to the conclusion
that he was the ‘Karta’ of the family at least during life time of
Jayakrushna, more particularly when the plaintiffs have led
evidence to the effect that Jayakrushna was in the helm of affairs of
the family. Further, there is no evidence on record to come to a
conclusion that Jayakrushna at any point of time during his life
time had relinquished his right to act as the ‘Karta’ of the family
with expressly or impliedly or by his consent. 
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
F.A. NO. 8 of 1990

Rasananda Sahoo 
V
Prafulla Kumar Sahu
and others 

Dated: 11.03.2016

P R E S E N T:
 THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
Citation: AIR 2017(NOC)81 ORISSA

Print Page

When junior members of family are bound by decision made by karta relating to family business and property?

 The status of the head of the family acting as a Karta

under the traditional Hindu law deserves to be kept in mind in
such a situation. The junior members of the family are bound by
decisions of a Karta in matters of family business and property
unless it can be pleaded and proved that the head of the family has
acted fraudulently or for immoral purposes. 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3687 OF 2006
Rajni Sanghi 
V
Western Indian State Motors Ltd. & Ors
Citation:December 01, 2015.
Citation:(2015) 16 SCC631
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

Print Page