RAJIV GANDHI NATIONALUNIVERSITYOFLAW,

PUNJAB

Sujata Sharma v Manu Gupta, (2016

SUBMITTED BY:
SUBMITTED TO:
Name: - Salonee
Dr. Gaganpreet Kaur Ma’
SharmaRoll number:

20225
Semester-IV, B.A. LL. B ( am Family Law
)
Rajiv Gandhi National University
1 ofLaw,
SUJATA SHARMA V MANU GUPTA, (2016
FAMILY LAW

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The completion of this project is the result of the advice, guidance and constant
support from my teachers, and I consider myself extremely fortunate to have
received this over the course of my project.

All of what I've accomplished has been possible only because of such oversight and
help, and I wouldn't have been able to achieve it without it. I would also like to thank
my teacher Gaganpreet Kaur ma’ am for giving me this opportunity to work on this
topic and assisting me throughout the project. I would also want to thank my friends
and the members of my group for their encouragement that kept me motivated and
helped me make this project more fascinating and captivating.

I am also thankful to the library department for providing me the research

Thank you!

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 5
I. POSITION PRE-2005 ............................................................................................... 6
II. POSITION POST-2005 ............................................................................................ 6
III. CASE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 7
Case Number...................................................................................................................7
Equivalent Citation.........................................................................................................7
Coram..............................................................................................................................7
Decided on.......................................................................................................................7
Relevant Act/ Section......................................................................................................7
IV. Background..............................................................................................................8
V. Brief Facts and Procedural History..........................................................................8
VI. Arguments................................................................................................................9
VII. Issues before the Court..........................................................................................10
4
VIII. The decision of the Court..................................................................................10
IX. Conclusion..............................................................................................................11

5
 I. INTRODUCTION

The Hindu Joint Family is an institution, having its roots traced back to the ancient
patriarchal society where patriarch or the head of the family was the unquestioned
ruler, laying down norms for the members of his family to follow, obeyed by
1
everyone in his family, and having control over their lives and properties. The
institution of a Hindu joint family consists of: all male members descended lineally from
a common male ancestor together with their mothers, wives or widows and
unmarried daughters. The Head of this family, who not only represent it in law and
virtually all matters but is also competent to bind all family members with his bona
fide actions or decisions taken with respect to the family and its property, is termed
as “ ” under Hindu Law. He is, generally, the senior most male

member of the family .

So, from the definition of the “ KARTA” under Hindu Law, G1 would be the Karta
of the above shown Hindu Undivided family. After G1 died, the title of the Karta

https://lexcliq.com/daughter-as-karta-a-case-study-of-sujata-sharma-v-manu-gupta-2016-226-dlt-6 47/ (last

6
would be would be crowned to F1, who is senior most member of the family after G1.
But who would hold the title of Karta of the family after F1 died, whether it would be
D1, being the senior most member of the family after F1 or it would be F2, the senior
most male-member of the family?.

I. POSITIONPRE-2005
The position of the Karta is regulated by birth and is guided by seniority. As being
the head of the family, he has the power to manage family affairs and the family
property. He has the power to take possession of the total property and receive the joint
family income from whichever source it may come. The Karta also has a right to
decide or allot specific portions of the house for family member’ s residence, which
latter must obey. From the instances of responsibilities of a Karta, it can be inferred
that the Karta must have an interest of residence and maintenance and also of
ownership in this property. In the ancient Hindu law, this right of ownership or a
right by birth in joint Hindu family property and a right to ask for partition has
been given to coparceners of the family, and coparcenary includes only male
members of the family up to three generations from the last holder of the property. A
daughter is born in the family but ceases to be a member of the family on her
marriage, so a position that is regulated by birth cannot be conferred on these
females. Secondly, since a female is not a coparcener, she cannot be a Karta, nor she
is empowered to represent the family generally.

II. POSITIONPOST-2005
The impediment which prevented a woman member of a Hindu joint Family from
becoming its Karta was that traditionally she was not a coparcener. This

7
disqualification has been removed by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
by virtue of which a daughter has been introduced as coparcener. Thus, if a male
member of a joint Hindu family, by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a
Karta, so can a female member.

Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta was the first case in which the Hon’ ble Delhi High
Court granted the right to become a Karta to the eldest female Coparcener of the
Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafter referred to as “ HUF” ). Such an approach by
the Hon’ ble Delhi High Court has generated a positive impact by removing gender
discrimination yet the same approach was not taken by satisfactory means.

III. CASEANALYSIS

Case Number
CS (OS) 2011/2006

Equivalent Citation
(2016) 226 DLT 647

Coram
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Decided on
22 DECEMBER 2015

8
Relevant Act/ Section

SECTION 6 WITHIN THE HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005

Section 6(1) provides that w.e.f. 06/09/2005, in a joint Hindu family governed by the
Mitakshara law, the daughter of coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her
own right in the same manner as the son. She shall have the same rights in the
coparcenery property as she would have had if she had been a son and she shall be
subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a

son1.

Section 6(2) of the new post amendment section 6 provides that any property to
which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub section (1) shall be held by her
with the incidents of coparcenary ownership. And property is capable of being

disposed of by her by testamentary disposition2.

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘ Act’ ) regulates intestate succession among
Hindus. In 2005, Section 6 of the Act was amended to confer legal rights and
liabilities upon daughters in the ancestral property by birth in a Hindu Undivided

Family (‘ HUF’ ), equal to son1.

IV. BACKGROUND

Before the enactment of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 women were considered physic

2
Id.

9
 acquire property from their father, they might not become Karta or play any role
within the family property.

On 9 September 2005, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force incorporating th
property of her father also as her in-laws.

V. BRIEFFACTSANDPROCEDURALHISTORY
3 Inthis case, The brief facts of the case as per plaint are that the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 4, 6
death of the fifth son of late Shri D.R. Gupta and the then Karta of the HUF in 20061.

The plaintiff being born in 1946 and being the daughter of the eldest son of late Shri D.R. Gupta, dis
the next Karta of the HUF. It was enquired of the plaintiff whether she being the

3
https://www.coursehero.com/file/109202957/sujatha-sharma-casepdf/ (last accessed on 18
April 2022)

10
oldest coparcener of the HUF would now be its Karta. Out of all the defendants, only
defendant nos. 1 to 5, 10 and 11 have opposed the idea of the plaintiff being Karta.
Defendant nos. 6 to 9, 12, 12A, 14, 15, 16 and 17 have given ''No Objection''
certificates regarding the same. For her part, the plaintiff has stated that taking
stock of the 2005 amendments in the Hindu Succession Act, 1955 due to which now
daughters also have a coparcenary right in a Joint Hindu Family HUF by virtue of
their birth, the plaintiff being the eldest coparcener alive ought to simply be declared

the Karta thereof4.

As per plaintiff, she came to be aware of the fact that defendant no. 1, who is ten
years younger than the plaintiff, sent a letter to the Defence Estate Officer
projecting himself as the Karta of the D.R. Gupta & Sons HUF. The legal character
of the plaintiff as the oldest coparcener and possible Karta was clouded and the

plaintiff thus filed the present suit for declaration that she is the Karta of the HUF1.

4
https://itatonline.org/archives/sujata-sharma-vs-manu-gupta-delhi-high-court/ (last accessed on 18 April
2022)

11
 VI. ARGUMENTS
Arguments made by the plaintiff

Plaintiff contended that her being a lady can’ t be the only reason for disqualification from being its K
enjoyed by a son of a coparcener5.

Arguments made by the defendant

1The defendant objected to such claims and contended that the amended section 6 of HSA only grants
considered as a requisite part of HUF.

VII. ISSUESBEFORETHECOURT

Whether the eldest daughter amongst the coparceners of Hindu Undivided family,
be entitled as Karta?

VIII. THEDECISIONOFTHECOURT

The Delhi High Court held that while women would have equal rights in a HUF property, this right co
necessary qualifications of Copartnership. Now, Under Hindu Succession

Amendment Act, 2005, this deprivation has been deleted and there is no reason

5
Id

12
 left that Hindu women should be denied the position of Karta in HUF. If the eldest
son is often Karta, so can a female member6.

Although the proper of being the Karta has been conferred abreast of the daughter, being the senior
persists in India Society1

IX. CONCLUSION

The concepts of Hindu law was based on the prolonged practices favouring by the patriarchal society

https://www.scribd.com/document/525035129/THE-EVOLUTION-OF-FEMALE-KARTA-IN-THE-LIGH
T-OF-THE-CASE-OF-SUJATA-SHARMA-V-MANU-GUPTA (last accessed on 17 Aril 2022)

13
impact the pending ligation where the coparcenary property is the subject matter
of the dispute and provide a speeding remedy.

When the legislature passes the amendment act of 2005, it is very evident that they want to include fe
nowadays. But this judgment has clarified the legislature’ s actual intent by

including the management of the HUF property. Hopefully, it would assist in

eliminating the gender discrimination, oppression, and negation of the

fundamental right of equality of women guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.

14