Faculty of Law

B.A.LLB. (H.)
Family Law Assignment
Topic – Karta: position, power

Submitted by:
Submitted to:
Huda Khan Afridi Prof.
Kahkashan Danyal
Sec. – A
III Year (5th Sem.)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Firstly, I would like to express my profound sense of gratitude towards the almighty “ALLAH”
for providing me with the authentic circumstances which were mandatory for the completion of
my project.
Secondly, I am highly indebted to Prof. Kahkashan Danyal at Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia
Islamia University, New Delhi for providing me with constant encouragement and guidance
throughout the preparation of this project.
Thirdly, I thank the Law library staff who liaised with us in searching material relating to the
project.
My cardinal thanks are also for my parents, friends and all teachers of law department in our
college who have always been the source of my inspiration and motivation without which I
would have never been able to unabridged my project.
Without the contribution of the above said people I could have never completed this project.
 CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Who can be a Karta?

3. Powers of Karta

a. Family Affairs Management

b. Powers to Represent
c. Power over Income
d. Power Alienation
e. Power to Contract Debts
 Liability of other members
 Burden of proof requirement
f. Power of the Karta to Gift Property
 Moveable property as gift
 Immoveable proper as gift
 Gift to strangers

4. Conclusion

5. Refrence

a. Books
b. Online Sources
 INTRODUCTION
Hindu law holds various unique features with reference to family institutions and the joint family
system is a very important aspect in understanding the functionality of this mechanism. The joint
family has numerous members with each individual owning their different property rights. Even
though the individuality exists, the cohesive structure of the family comes into the fore with
reference to the decisions which are required to be taken by the family as a whole in various
legal and other matters. In such situations, it becomes exigent that there is one individual who
shall head such matters and hold decision making powers. Such an individual is termed as
the Karta.

In the Hindu Undivided Family, the Karta holds a very unique position. This sui generis nature
of the karta is with reference to the varied powers he holds while discharging his functions as the
decision maker in various respects of the family functionality. The karta is considered to be a
person with controlled capacities but within this fringe outline, he holds an immensely important
position of responsibility. The relationship that a karta holds with other members of the family is
not that of trustee or that of a partner or principal. His unique powers are “very wide and almost
sovereign” and thus, its comparison to any partnership or a principal-agent relationship is naïve.
The karta does stand in a fiduciary accord with the rest of the members of the family but the
relationship cannot be termed as that of trusteeship. Even on the accountability factor, he is not
accountable to any member of the family until it is a matter of misappropriation or fraud.1

1
Paras Diwan, Family Law (2nd Edn. Orient Publishing Company, 2002)
 WHO CAN BE A KARTA?
With reference to  A. Kunjipokkarukutty v. A Ravunni2, it was noted that the in the absence of the
father in the family, it is the doyen i.e. the most senior member of the family who is concluded to
be the Karta. This conclusion is based upon seniority and the opinion of the other members does
not hold much significance. It must be noted that a person cannot become the karta until and
unless the previous karta is no longer alive notwithstanding few exception.3

When the karta relinquishes his right to manage the affairs of the family due to reasons of his
health or due to him being away, another member of the family can be allowed to look after the
joint family property with the consent of all other members of the family, not necessarily being
in a list of seniority of age4.

A landmark case in this regard is the case of Nopany Investments (Pvt) Ltd. v. Santokh
Singh wherein the karta of the family was staying in U.K and could not handle the property due
to the reason of distance and thus, with the consent of all his family members, appointed his
younger brother as the Karta even though there were other members who were older than him.
This was held to be valid by the court as it held that under such situations, the younger member
can be rightfully made the Karta.

A karta can only be a male member and females cannot be the karta of a joint family because
they are non-coparcener5 and are not allowed to represent the family in general situations6. It was
held in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lakshmi Narang7 that a female member can be allowed
to be the kartaunder some situations but this judgment is held to be incorrect due to the non-
coparcener aspect.8

With regard to the issue if minors can be a karta, it was established again in Narendra Kumar v.
CIT9 that if the minor left as the only one to manage, if under the supervision of a guardian. It
must be noted that Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (Section 21)  does accede to the validity of a
minor being in a “managerial position” of a Hindu Undivided family10.

2
AIR 1973 Ker 192

3
Sidappa v. Linappa, 42 Mys HCR 669

4
Mudit v. Ranglal, (1902) ILR 29 Cal 797; Narendra Kumar v.  Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1976 SC 1953

5
Manglal v. Jayabhai, AIR 1994 Kant 276

6
Ram Avadh v. kedar Nath, AIR 1976 All 283

7
(1948) ILR Nag 775.

8
Kusum, Family Law Lectures (2nd Edn., Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2007)

9
AIR 1976 SC 1953

10
Sarda Prasad v. Umeshwar Prasad (1963) Pat 274
 POWERS OF THE KARTA

Family Affairs Management

Being the supreme head of the family, a karta holds the power to look after the family matters
and the property that belongs to the family. With reference to the case of Bhaskaran v.
Bhaskaran11, it has been held that even though a Karta’s ambit about property alienation is
limited, his powers in management of the family affairs is rather absolute. The karta does hold
the capacity to possess the property in totality and be the recipient of the income of HUF
irrespective of its source.

Also, he holds some special rights like that of the power of eviction in which if there is some
particular member who demands some specific portion of the family property without the karta
acceding to such a demand, he can be evicted form that portion.12

His powers of management are deemed to be inherent and no interference is to be accepted even
when he shows attributes of favoritism and bias towards certain family members with reference
to maintenance etc. This is upon the discretion of the Karta and this cannot be challenged.

Power to Represent
The Karta is understood to be the sole representative of the family structure when it concerns any
legal or even social matters.13 When a specific suit is filed by the family in any court, the
particular suit is filed in the name of the Karta and also when there is a suit against the family,
the specific name is that of the Karta in the court.

This means that the Karta is clearly a representative of the whole family and the family, in itself,
do not have a particular identity in corporate terms. So, when there is one particular judgment
passed against the karta, it in totality binds all the existing members of the family even though
they may not be individually responsible in the relevant act.14 The expectation from the Karta is
that in matters of litigation, he must show extreme levels of sincerity and effort. If due to any
such lack, the litigation matter is lost, the family cannot take up this as an excuse for the decree
to not be binding upon them.15

The karta does not have any greater interest in a manner of proprietorship when compared to any
other member of the family but owing to his position as the karta, he holds a capability to

11
(1908) ILR 31 Mad 318

12
Baldeo Das v. Shamlal

13
Singriah v. Ramanuja, AIR 1959 Mys 239 (DB)

14
Rajayya v. Singa Reddy, AIR 1956 Hyd 200

15
Krishnamurthi v. Chidambaram, (1946) ILR Mad 670
dispose property.16 With reference to minor in the joint family, it must be understood that when
the manager makes a contract with an outside party and during that time, one of the members of
the family has not attained majority, the contract cannot be deemed to be binding on the minor.
This rule is from the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and is applicable here as well for the minor for
the contracts relating to buying of immoveable property as well as to contracts made by the Karta
for necessities.17

Power Over Income

The managerial aspect of the karta mandates the karta, the aspect of controlling his income and
expenditure and if there exists any surplus in the family accounts, he has control over those
accounts too. If the karta has expenses which the other family members don’t agree to, then these
members have the option of demanding a partition and the karta has to appropriate their share
including the amount they considered to have been inappropriately spent.   It was noted in Tara
chand v. Reeb Ram that while taking accounts during the division of property, no coparcener
must have a charge against him with the rationale that owing to his larger family requirements, a
greater share of the joint family amount was spent on his own family.

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. Such

16
Rajayya v. Sangareddy, AIR 1956 Hyd 200

17
AIR 1930 Cal 457 (DB)
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 laws18 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.19 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.20

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.

Thus, it can be safely concluded through the research that Karta can only have one specified
limitation which is that:

  “A karta must act with prudence; prudence implies caution as well as foresight and excludes
hasty, reckless and arbitrary conduct and such alienation on part of the karta without the family
purpose or necessity clause, is void”21

For this question of prudence, the consideration’s sufficiency is an important condition for such
judgment.

As analyzed though precedents, it cannot be stated that whenever a karta requires monetary sums
in order to pay the pre-emption requirements and for the prices of new property, it is always
without any requirement in legal contrivance and thus, outside the ambit of the father in the

18
AIR 1941 ALL 174: 1941 ALJ 129: 1941 AWR (HC) 70
19
AIR 1939 All 486: 1939 ALJ 604

20
AIR 1956 Oudh 302 (DB)

21
Lexis Nexis Pg 620
family.  Also, it cannot be stated that the karta is supposed to borrow amounts for such fresh
acquisition by pre-emption. These matters have to be dealt according to the special existing
circumstances each time.22 Also, during times when the money borrowed by the Karta is for his
individual purposes, he is not allowed to mortgage or use the family property in any manner to
fulfill his own liabilities.

Power to Contract Debts

The karta has the power to contract debts for the family in accordance with their needs and these
debts are binding upon all the members. The members cannot escape liability from these debts
even upon acts of partition from the joint estate.23 However, it has been established that the karta
cannot be allowed to raise loans by giving in as security, the estate of a minor family member so
as to start some trade of ancestral nature.24

Now, the paper shall deal with the liability ratio of the members for the contracted debt:

1. Liability of other members

During the situation wherein the karta contracted a debt on the family property, a member is not
liable in a personal manner but rather, only to the limit of its interest. But in some circumstances
wherein the contract is actually purporting to parties or when they can be treated as parties due to
their conduct or if they have agreed to the arrangement, their limited does not remain limited. So
the deeming of the members to be actual parties is essential to establishing the liability ratio.25

2. Burden of Proof Requirement

Any debt that has been contracted by a karta on behalf of the family is not inherently assumed to
be one where the interest of the family is involved.

As stated in Mulla, Principles of Hindu Law26:

“When the lender is familiar with all the circumstances of the family to which the money is lent
and he knows whether the borrowing arose or not, the only way in which the family could be
made liable in such a case would be by proof that the necessity did exist”.

The loan-provider is compulsorily required to look into the necessity of the loan for the joint
family as the purpose of the loan is not supposed to be inherently presumed. Caution during the
inquiry is enough to justify the loan but if it is a matter when the joint family has been taking

22
Subramanium v. krishnaswami, AIR 1972 Mad 377: 85 Mad LW 211.

23
Bankey Lal v. Durga Prasad, ILR (1931) 53 All 868 (FB)

24
48 PLR 454: AIR 1947 Lah 199:231 IC 383 (DB)

25
Vishan Singh v. Narnajan Sngh, 59 Punj LR 182

26
Mulla, Principles of Hindu Law, VOL- II(2nd Edn. LexisNexis Butterworths, New Delhi)
loans since a no. of years, the loan-provider does not have to prove the necessity for every penny
involved.27

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”.

Immoveable 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. Mallapa28 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.

27
Radhakrishnadas v. Kaluram, AIR 1967 SC 574

28
AIR 1964 SC 510
 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.
 REFERENCE

Books

1. Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law Lectures Family Law II, 3rd Edition, Lexis Nexis.
2. Mulla, Principles of Hindu Law, 17th Edition, Vol.1, Butterworths India.
3. M. Gandhi, Hindu Law, 2nd Edition, Eastern Book Company.
4. Werner F. Menski, Hindu Law Beyond Tradition and Modernity, Oxford University
Press.
5. Maynes, Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage, 14th Edition, Bharat Law House.
6. Ramesh Chandra Nagpal, Modern Hindu Law, 2nd Edition, Eastern Book Company.
7. K. Mitra, Mitra on Hindu Law, Orient Publishing Company.
8. Darret J., Duncan M. “Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law” Vol.2, Universal
Book Traders.
9. Paras Diwan, Modern Hindu Law, 16th Edition, Allahabad Law Agency.

Online Sources

1. Ankita Gupta, Karta/Manager, and His Legal Position: Socio-Legal Study, available
at http://www.manupatra.com/roundup/341/Articles/Karta%20and%20his%20Legal
%20Position.pdf
2. Manisha, Concept of Karta in Joint Hindu Family, available
athttp://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Concept-of-Karta-in-Joint-Hindu-Family-
4678.asp
3. Pragati Ghosh, 5 Most Important Duties and Liabilities of a Manager of a Joint Hindu
Family, available at http://www.shareyouressays.com/117196/5-most-important-duties-
and-liabilities-of-a-manager-of-a-joint-hindu-family
4. Roopa Gargava, Position of Karta and the effect of Amendment of section 6 of HSA,
1956 in 2005, available at http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/karta_hsa.htm
5. Rajini Singh, Position of Karta and the effect of Amendment of section 6 of HSA, 1956
in 2005, available at http://jurisonline.in/?p=18386