STATUS AND ROLE OF A KARTA

PROJECT SUBMITTED BY:

AMAN GUPTA

BBA LLB (Hons.)

Roll No. 1811

SUBMITTED TO:

MRS. POOJA SRIVASTAV

MARCH, 2019

FOR FAMILY LAW II FOR THE DEGREE OF BBA LLB(HONS.)

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

I hereby declare that the project entitled “STATUS AND ROLE OF A KARTA” submitted by me at

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY is a record of bona fide project work carried out by

me under the guidance of our mentor Mrs. Pooja Srivastav. We further declare that the work reported

in this project has not been submitted and will not be submitted, either in part or in full, for the award

of any other degree or diploma in this university or in any other university.

__________

(AMAN GUPTA)

Roll no. – 1811

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Page | 2
It is a fact that any research work prepared, compiled or formulated together is inexplicable to an extent.
This research work, although prepared by us, is a culmination of efforts of a lot of people who remained
in veil, who gave their intense support and helped us in the completion of this project.

Firstly, we are very grateful to our subject teacher Mrs. Pooja Srivastav, without the kind support and
help of whom the completion of this project was a herculean task for us. She donated her valuable time
from her busy schedule to help us to complete this project. We would like to thank her for her valuable
suggestions towards the making of this project.

We are highly indebted to our parents and friends for their kind co-operation and encouragement which
helped us in completion of this project. We are also thankful to the library staff of our college which
assisted us in acquiring the sources necessary for the compilation of our project.

Last but not the least we would like to thank the Almighty who kept us mentally strong and in good
health to concentrate on our project and to complete it in time.

I thank all of them!

AMAN GUPTA

Roll No. – 1811

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.
Page | 3
1. Introduction--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 - 6

 Aims and objectives

2. Karta: The Manager of Joint Hindu Family-------------------------------------------------------- 7 - 8

3. Status or Position of the Karta----------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 - 13

4. Roles of Karta----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 - 16

5. Powers of Karta--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 - 19

6. Case Study--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20

7. Conclusion--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21

8. Bibliography------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23

1. INTRODUCTION

Page | 4
The head of the Hindu Joint Family also called the Karta or manager of the joint family
occupies a unique position unlike any other member of the family. The senior most male member
of the Hindu joint family is usually the Karta or head of the family. Often Karta is called Manager of
the joint family, this is when there exists a family business or if it is a trading family, there
has to be a manager to take care of the proper functioning and supervision of the business. The
Karta has innumerable rights and powers. He can exercise these rights in any manner he thinks fit
as long as it’s for the greater good of the family. Along with such great power he has a
number of liabilities such as maintenance of family members and keeping proper accounts.

The position of the “Karta” of the Hindu common family has its roots in the “Patriarch” of the old
family units. He occupies a 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 as are possessed by
none else.1 The term “Karta” was defined in Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Persad,2 A Karta in a Hindu
Undivided Family holds the power regarding: Revenue and Expenditure Authority, Power to manage a
joint family business, Power to contract a debt for family purpose, Power to enter into a contract, Power
to refer to arbitration and many more. Karta because of its position as a head of the family has certain
duties and liabilities to perform like: Maintenance, Marriage, and Accounts at the time of Partition, The
actual division of ownership, and Representation.

This project seeks to analyze the position and power of the Karta and the extent of his duties and rights
with respect to legal position, income, properties, business, etc. and the role which Karta plays in a
Hindu Undivided Family.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

 To study in details the purview of a Karta as a whole and especially the role he plays in a Hindu
Undivided Family.
1
DR. PARAS DIWAN, FAMILY LAW 400 (10th ed., 2013).
2
1880 ILR 5 Cal 148.
Page | 5
  To test the hypothesis whether Karta is a pivotal position of its institution and his position is sui
generis or not.

HYPOTHESIS

 Karta is a pivotal position of its institution and his position is sui generis.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

 The researcher would like to undertake the doctrinal method of research.

SOURCES OF DATA

 The researcher has used both, primary as well as the secondary sources to complete the project.

LIMITATION

 There is a time limitation for the researcher to finish the research.

2. KARTA
2. ESSENTIALS OF: UNDUE
THE MANAGER OF HINDU JOINT FAMILY
INFLUENCE

Page | 6
2.1 Who is a Karta?

The manager of the joint family is called the karta.3 The senior most member male member of a joint
Hindu family is considered as the karta of the family provided he is otherwise fit to act as such that he is
not suffering from any physical or mental deficiency. 4 He is not an agent or trustee of the family but as
the head of the family he is the custodian or guardian of the property and affairs of the family and of the
interest of the family.

The karta of the joint Hindu family is certainly the manager of the joint family property but
undoubtedly possesses powers which the ordinary manager does not possess. The karta, therefore,
cannot be just equated with the manager of property. 5 The position of a karta which is acquired by birth
and regulated by seniority, subject to his capacity to act, is terminable either by resignation or
relinquishment and is not indefeasible6.

2.1.1 More than one Karta

Two persons may look after the affairs of the family 7; this authority is based not on any Hindu laws but
on the members of the family who confer this authority on them. The most important qualification
required to become a Karta is that the person should be a coparcener in the family. With the consent of
the others, a junior member of the family may become the manager of the family property or there can
be more than one managing member. There cannot be two kartas of a joint Hindu family but karta or
members of the joint Hindu family can by express or implied terms confer authority on a junior member
to look after the affairs of the joint Hindu family or its business and to take all necessary steps for the
smooth and beneficial management of the business and to protect the interest of such joint family
business.8

2.1.2 Minor as a Karta

As regards, junior male members, as long as a senior member is present they cannot become Karta,
unless all the coparceners agree to the junior member occupying managerial position. This was re-
3
Suraj Bansi Koer v. Sheo Parsad (1880) 5 Cal 148.
4
G.M. Diwekar, Hindu Law- A Critical Commentary 56 (Hindu Law House 2nd ed. 2002).
5
Union of India v. Sri Ram Bohra, MANU/SC/0004/1965: AIR 1965 SC 1531.
6
Ranganath Misra and Vijender Kumar, (rev.), Mayne, ”Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage”, 16th ed; 2008, p.759.
7
Union of Indiav.Shriram MANU/SC/0004/1965: AIR 1965 SC 1531.
8
Nemi Chand v. Hira Chand, 2000 (1) HLR 250 (Raj).
Page | 7
affirmed by the Narendra Kumar v. CIT.9 If it turns out that a minor is the only one left to be manager;
he can as long as a capable guardian represents him. Section 21 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
recognises the competence of minors to occupy managerial position in an undivided family.10

2.1.3 Father as a Karta

If the manager or the karta is the father, he has certain additional powers of alienation under the Hindu
law and in exercise of those powers, he can alienate joint family property so as to bind the interests of
his minor sons in such property.11 Property belonging to a joint family is ordinarily managed by the
father or other senior member of the family. In case of a father as the karta, the debts for which the
property is alienated may not be for the benefits of the family provided they are antecedent debts not
tainted by immorality or any illegality.12

3. INFLUENCE
3. UNDUE STATUS OR PIN
OSITION OF THE KARTA
UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAINS

The position of the Karta is sui generis. The relationship between him and other members is not that of
principle 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
leveled against him, he is the master and no one can question him as to what he received and what he
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 the 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 the other. In

9
MANU/SC/0523/1976: AIR 1976 SC 1953.
10
Sarda Prasad v. Umeshwar Prasad (1963) Pat 274.
11
Subramaniam v. Krishnaswami MANU/TN/0324/1972: AIR 1972 Mad 377.
12
Sarangpani v. K.V.Pradhan 1993 (1) Hindu L.R. 17 (Mad.).
Page | 8
Radhakrishna v. Kuluram,13 the Supreme Court held that the Karta can enter into any transaction on
behalf of the family and it will be ordinarily binding on the members.

The position of karta is also sui juris. He is the person who is able to contract with any individual or
organization. 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. 14 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.

3.1 Legal Position of Karta

The karta can file suits or take other legal proceedings to safeguard the interest of the family and its
properties and business.15 He can represent the family effectively in a proceeding even if he has not
been named as such.16 Where a transaction purports to have been entered into by two or more persons
described as kartas or managers of the joint family, they must all join as Plaintiffss in the suit. However,
it is not necessary that all members of the joint family should join in the suit.17

There is no right in a minor or an adult member of the family to bring a suit to set aside a decree passed
against the manager on the ground that the manager acted with gross negligence in the conduct of the
suit.18 An adverse order passed against the manager requiring him to deliver the possession of the
property to another person, binds the other members of the family, though they are not parties there.19

He can refer any disputes to arbitration or can effect settlement or compromise of such disputes. The
reference may be in respect of disputes between the family and an outsider, or disputes between the
members of the family themselves, e.g. as to shares on partition. A compromise entered into by the
manager bona fide for the benefit of the family, binds the other members of the family including
minors.20
13
MANU/SC/0393/1962: AIR 1967 SC 574.
14
Bankey Lal v. Durga Prasad, ILR (1931) 53 All 868 (FB).
15
Sheoshankar v. Jaddokunwar, AIR 1914 (41) IA 216.
16
Amrit Sagar v. Sudesh Behari Lal, MANU/SC/0484/1969: AIR 1970 SC 5.
17
Gendalal v. Nanalal, AIR 1956 MB 58.
18
Krishnamurti v. Chidamabaram (1946) Mad 670.
19
Venkatanarayana v. Somaraju, (1937) Mad 880.
20
Pitam Singh v. Ujgar Singh, (1878) 1 All 651.
Page | 9
3.2 Position of the Karta regarding income

The manager as the head of the family has control over the income and expenditure, and he is the
custodian of the surplus, if any. Besides the expenses of management, realization and protection of the
family estate, the family purposes are ordinarily maintenance, residence, education, marriage, sraddha
and religious ceremonies of the coparceners and their families. 21 The expenses of each coparcener or his
branch cannot in law, in the absence of usage, be debited to the particular coparcener. If he spends more
than the other members approve, their remedy is to demand a partition.22

So long as the manager of the joint family administers the funds for the purpose of the family, he is not
under the same obligation to economize or to save, as would be the case with an agent or trustee. On the
other hand, he is liable to make good to them their shares of all sums, which he has misappropriated, or
which he has spent for purposes other than those in which the joint family was interested.23

3.2.1 Position regarding debts

He can acknowledge liability to pay debts due and payable by the family, to give discharge for debt; to
pay interest on money borrowed etc. due and payable by the family. If the manager revives a time
barred debt by passing a promissory note, he alone is liable for the debt.24

If a decree is passed against the karta or manager of the joint Hindu family in respect of a liability
properly incurred for the necessities of the family, the binding character of this decree upon the interest
of the other members depends, not upon their having or not having been parties to the suit but on the
authority of the manager to incur the liability. 25 Where the manager borrows money to save the family
property and to remove the fear of disturbance likely to be caused in the family business, the existence
of necessity may be presumed, where there is nothing to show that the lender acted otherwise than in
good faith.

21
Kameswara Sastri v. Veeracharlu, (1911) 34 Mad 422.
22
Bhogani v. Jaggernath, (1909) 13 CWN 309.
23
Abhaychandra v. Pyari Mohan, (1870) 5 Beng LR 347.
24
Thakar Das v. Mst. Putli (1924) 5 Lah 317.
25
(1907) 6 CLJ 362 (DB).
Page | 10
A creditor advancing money to the manager must satisfy himself that the money was required for family
purposes.26 The necessity for a manager to borrow money confers upon him authority to borrow upon
reasonable commercial terms and no further.

3.2.2 Position regarding accounts

In the absence of any proof of misappropriation or fraudulent and improper conversion by the manager
of a joint family estate, he is liable to account on partition only for assets which he has received, not for
what he ought or might have received if the family money had been profitably dealt with.27

3.3 Position regarding business

If the family has ancestral business the karta has a right to carry on the business with or without the help
of the other family members and for that purpose to do all acts and things required to be done to carry
on the business such as buying and selling or manufacturing goods, engaging employees, to enter into
contracts for sale and purchase of goods, to borrow money, etc.

He can also enter into partnerships with any other person or persons when the family itself is carrying
on any ancestral business. The power of a manager to carry on a family business necessarily implies a
power to mortgage or sell the family property for a legitimate and proper purpose of the business. The
manager can make contracts, give receipts and compromise or discharge claims incidental to the
business.

3.4 Position regarding property

3.4.1 Immovable Property

If the family has immovable property or properties he has the power to manage the same by recovering
rents, paying expenses by way of taxes, maintenance and carrying out repairs. The karta can bring a suit
for recovery of the joint family property on behalf of the joint family members.28

26
Acharya Shuklendra, Hindu Law 631 (Modern Law House 1st ed. 2002).
27
Laxminarayanan v. Dinker, (1943) 3 Nag 390.
28
Gangadhar Rao v. Ganga Rao, MANU/AP/0117/1968: AIR 1968 AP 291.
Page | 11
Partition -The power of the father of a joint family to divide family property at any time during his life
provided he gives his sons equal share with himself, is well established. The consent of the sons is not
necessary for the exercise of that power, the right of the father to sever himself and the sons inter se
being part of the partriae potestas that was recognized by the Hindu law. 29 If the partition is unequal and
unfair it is open to the sons, if they are majors, to repudiate the partition but in case they are minors,
they can take action only when they become majors. Till then the partition remains valid.30

Alienation -The Karta or manager can alienate the coparcenary property by sale or mortgage for legal
necessity or benefit of the estate or otherwise. The Karta is not required to obtain the consent of the
other coparceners for alienation and if the alienation is for legal necessity, it will bind the other
coparceners.31 Any alienation made subsequent to the relinquishment of the office will not bind the
other coparceners. But an alienation by the manager for no family purpose or necessity and made
without the assent of the others is void and a subsequent ratification by the other members cannot
validate it.

When a junior member is allowed to deal with family properties as if he was the manager, any
alienation by him for family necessity is binding on all the members of the family, including the real
manager. Where the joint family property is alienated by the karta but legal necessity is not proved, still
the sale is binding on the undivided share of the karta. 32 The only reasonable limitation that can be
imposed on the karta is that he must act with prudence, and prudence implies caution as well as
foresight and excludes hasty, reckless and arbitrary conduct. The situation is to be assessed on the basis
of the facts of the situation. However, an alienation made for a grossly inadequate amount even if for a
legal necessity cannot be held to be valid. But if legal necessity is proved, mere inadequacy of
consideration is no ground for setting aside the sale by the manager.33

It cannot be however said to be beneficial to a Hindu joint family for the manager to purchase property
for which the family is unable to pay and when the family is unable to pay, it is certainly not for the
benefit of the family that a liability should be cast upon the joint family ancestral property. 34 Alienation

29
A.G. Gupte, Hindu Law 1408 (Premier Publishing Company 1st ed. 2003).
30
P.N. Venkatasubramania Iyer v. P.N. Easwara Iyer, MANU/TN/0226/1966: AIR 1966 Mad 266.
31
Ramesh Damodar Deshmukh v. Damodar D. Deshmukh, (1999) 1 Mah. L.J. 153.
32
Jawwala Singh v. Lachman Das, MANU/PH/0148/1974: AIR 1974 P & H 188.
33
Dharma Singh v. Sadhu Singh, MANU/PH/0026/1997: AIR 1997 P. & H. 198.
34
MANU/UP/0044/1939: AIR 1939 All 486.
Page | 12
by the managing member of the family cannot be said to be for legal necessity, if the legal remedy to
recover the debt has become time barred.

The alienee therefore has to prove one of the following two things:

(1) the transaction was in fact justified by legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate.

(2) he has made reasonable or bona fide enquiries as to the existence of the necessity and satisfied
himself that the manager was acting for the benefit of the estate.

Gifts - It is competent for a father to make a gift of immovable property to a daughter if the gift is of a
reasonable extent having regard to the properties held by the family because a Hindu father is under
legal obligation to make a gift of a reasonable portion of the family property as a provision to his
daughters on the occasion of their marriages. However, a similar gift from a husband to his wife or from
a father-in-law to his daughter-in-law cannot be said to be for pious purposes. The position in Hindu
law is that whereas the father has the power to gift ancestral movable property within reasonable limits,
he has no such power regarding the immovable property except for pious purposes. Gifts of coparcenary
immovable or movable property to strangers are void.

3.4.2 Movable Property

The father has the power of making within reasonable limits gifts of ancestral moveable property
without the consent of his sons for the purpose of performing “indispensable acts of duty, and for
purposes prescribed by texts of law, as gifts through affection, support of the family, relief from distress
and so forth.” A gift of affection may be made to a wife, a daughter and even to a son.

4. ROLES OF KARTA

A Karta plays various roles in a family:

4.1 Karta as a Guardian

Under the pre-Act law, the father’s right to act as the guardian of his minor children extended, in the
Naitiksastras, to the person and the separate property of the minor. Coparcenary property was controlled

Page | 13
by the Karta of the family. In the Dayabhaga areas a minor whose father is alive can have no interest in
coparcenary property, as such; it extended the person and the whole of the minor’s property.

The undivided interest of a minor in joint family property has been specifically excluded from the
purview of the Act by excluding it from the meaning of the term ‘minor’s property’ as used in Section
6. Under the provisions of the Act the undivided interest of a minor in joint family property is excluded
from the meaning of the term ‘minor’s property’ therefore, the law remains what it was in respect of
minor’s interest in coparcenary property.

No District Court or other inferior Court may, under the Guardians and Ward Act, 1890, appoint a
guardian in respect of a minor’s interest in coparcenary property under the management of the Karta of
the minor’s family, such Karta being himself an adult, but the High Court’s always could and may,
under their inherent powers, appoint a person other than the Karta as guardian of a minor’s interest in
coparcenary property.

The Karta is the guardian not only of his own minor children and wife, but also of the minor children
and wives of other coparceners. Where all the coparceners of a joint family including the Karta are
minor’s the Court may, even under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, appoint a guardian of the
person of the Karta, and the coparcenary property in his charge, but such guardianship terminates ipso
facto as soon as the Karta, who is the eldest among the coparceners attains majority.

4.2 Karta as a Representative

The Karta is understood to be the sole representative of the family structure when it concerns any legal
or even social matters.35 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.36 The expectation from the Karta is that in matters of

35
Singriah v. Ramanuja, AIR 1959 Mys 239 (DB).
36
Rajayya v. Singa Reddy, AIR 1956 Hyd 200.
Page | 14
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.37

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 dispose
property.38 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.39

4.3 Karta as a Trustee

The position of manager in a joint family cannot be compared with a trustee or an agent or a partner in a
firm under any legal system of the world. In this connection the Privy Council observed: “The relation
of such person is not that of a principal or agent or of partner, it is more like that a trustee and cestui que
trust.

But he is not a trustee in the sense that he is liable to account for past dealings with the family property
nor is he under same obligation to economise and to save as would be the case with a paid agent or
trustee.

Under Dayabhag law there is closer approximation in the status of a Karta and a trustee. Cowell in
Tagore Law Lectures has observed: He is a sort of representative owner, his independent rights being
limited on all sides by the co-relative rights of others and burdened with a liability со-extensive with the
ownership to provide for the maintenance of the family.40

37
Krishnamurthi v. Chidambaram, (1946) ILR Mad 670.
38
Rajayya v. Sangareddy, AIR 1956 Hyd 200.
39
AIR 1930 Cal 457 (DB).
40
Akshay Koundal, What is the Position of Karta in the Hindu Joint Family?, SHARE YOUR ESSAYS (March 4, 2019, 6:37
PM), HTTP://WWW.SHAREYOURESSAYS.COM/KNOWLEDGE/WHAT-IS-THE-POSITION-OF-KARTA-IN-THE-HINDU-JOINT-
FAMILY/117737.
Page | 15
Whatever services a Karta renders for the joint family is without any remuneration, although for his
strenuous and hard services the other members of the joint family can mutually agree to pay some
remuneration to him. Whatever remuneration is, thus paid to him will become his separate property.

Ordinarily the right to management of the family vestes in the eldest member of the joint family, but he
can with the consent of other coparceners give up this right in favour of next senior member of family.

5. POWERS OF KARTA

Karta’s powers in the joint family property are no greater than a coparcener in neither family nor does
Karta’s right to enjoy the same as any other coparcener. He receives no remuneration for the services he
renders in the family.

(1) Revenue and Expenditure Authority:

Karta has extensive control over the income and expenses of the common family. As his position is not
like the trustee or agent, he is not obliged to save or save as a trustee or agent provided he spends the
family income for the benefit of the members of the family. The family, p., sraddha and other religious
ceremonies of coparceners and their respective families.41

(2) 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 economize 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 he may allot smaller portion. 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 more effective, check is the affection

41
Sumit Mishra, Role of Karta in Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) (July 26, 2018, 07:30 PM),
https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/role-of-karta-in-hindu-undivided-family-huf-by-sumit-mishra/.
Page | 16
and the natural concern that he has for the members of the family and the complete faith and confidence
that members repose in him.

(3) Power to contract the debt for family purposes:

The Karta may contract debts for family and family purposes which will bind the other co-contractors
only to the extent of their interest in the common family property. Such debt contracts could personally
bind the adult co-partitioners also if they were parties to the contract expressly or implicitly or they
subsequently ratify the contract and in the case of minors if they ratify by obtaining a majority. In the
case of an advanced loan to the manager, if the lender properly investigates the need for the loan and
lends the money, the debt binds the interests of all the members, although the reasonably justified need
did not exist.

(4) 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, C.P.C. 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.42 The Karta has no right to give up a substantial portion of a debt due to the
family merely out of charity, or sympathy.43

(5) Power to refer a dispute to arbitration:

The Karta has power to refer any dispute to arbitration and the award of the arbitration will be binding
on the joint family.44

(6) 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. 45 Association of another in the transaction
does not alter the position of the Karta or the binding character of the transaction. He represents the
42
Nathathambi v. Vijaya, (1972) 2 MLJ 535.
43
Konduru v. Indoor, (1928) 51 Mad 484.
44
Jagannath v. Mannulal, (1894) 16 All 231.
45
Radhakrishnadas v. Kuluram, AIR 1967 SC 574.
Page | 17
family in suits and other legal proceedings.46 The joint family will be bound by a decree or order passed
in legal proceedings. Even when the Karta has lost a case on account of his negligence, it is not open to
the other members to have the decree set aside on that ground alone.47

(7) 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.48 The Karta has no power to acknowledge a time-barred debt.49

(8) Power to represent in costume:

The Karta can represent the common family in the case of a complaint by or against the family so that
the other members are not the necessary parties to the same thing. The Karta itself issued or it can bring
an action with respect to any property or other issues of the common family. Whenever a decree is
issued against him, it binds all the other members of the family, if, as far as the minor members are
concerned, he has acted in the dispute in their interest, and in the case of important members he acted
with their consent.

The Karta also represents the interests of the common family property. In the case of Fathiunnisa
Begum v. Tamirasa Raja Gopala Charyulu, the Court noted that a Hindu widow inheriting from her
husband under the Indian Women’s Rights Act of 1937 does not per se disturb the common family
status.

After such an inheritance, she continues to be a member of the common family and the Karta of the
common family can represent her in all the lawsuits. The expansion of her limited succession in full
succession under section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act does not result in a change in Karta’s power to
represent the joint family, including her.

(9) Power of Alienation:

The Karta may alienate to the value of the common family property in order to bind the interests of the
other coparceners provided that it is done:

46
Baskari v. Bhasharam, (1908) 31 Mad 318.
47
Lingangowda v. Basangowda, (1927) 54 I.A. 122.
48
Section 21, The Limitation Act, 1963, No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 1963 (India).
49
Dassappa v. Vedarathamma, AIR 1972 Mys 288.
Page | 18
1. a) With the consent of all existing co-partitioners; they are all adults;

(b) For legal reasons; or

(c) For the benefit of the estate

Thus, when the Karta alienates the common property of the family because of legal necessity or for the
benefit of the estate, the consent of the other co-owners for this purpose is not necessary. In such cases,
he may proceed with the alienation of the common family, even without the consent of the other
coparceners.

He does not have the absolute power to alienate joint family property. Strict restrictions have been
placed on his powers in this regard. The phrase “for pious purposes” has been so often used in different
contexts of Hindu law. Karta’s powers cannot extend in this context.

In the case of G. Shiva Kumari v. Indian Overseas Bank, High Court of Andhra Pradesh has found that
the Karta of the common family can encumber the estate by mortgaging the property in favour of the
estate. However, in doing so, he must act as a prudent owner with the knowledge he has at the time of
the transaction. A manager’s transaction that is neither risky nor speculative, but intended to confer a
positive benefit on the family, can be considered to benefit the estate.

6. CASE STUDY

Sheoshankar v. Jaddokunwar50: The Karta may file lawsuits or other legal proceedings to safeguard
the interest of the family and its property and affairs.  

50
AIR 1914 (41) IA 216.
Page | 19
Amrit Sagar v. Sudesh Behari Lal51: He can represent the family effectively in a proceeding even if
he has not been named as such.

Ramsebuk v. Ramlall52: When a transaction is supposed to have been concluded by two or more
persons who are known as Kartas or managers of the common family, they must all join as plaintiffs in
the lawsuit.

Narayana v. Somaraju53: Order against the manager obliging him to deliver the property to another
person, binds the other.

Venkata Row v. Tulja Ram Row 54: He may submit any dispute to arbitration or may settle or
compromise such disputes.

Pitam Singh v. Ujgar Singh55: A compromise made by the good faith manager for the benefit of the
family binds other family members, including minors.

Shankarlal Ladha v. Vasanth Deshmukh and Ors.56, it was held that the purchaser of the joint Hindu
family property is under obligation to discharge burden of proof to prove existence of the legal
necessity. It was also held that the marriage expenses of the male coparcener can be regarded as
incidents of legal necessity and mere vague recitals in the sale deed that it was for the purpose of
improvement of agricultural lands would not be sufficient.

Bhagyamma v. Ningaramma57, it has been held the rights and interests of the people affected need to
be taken into consideration by the alienee.

Chanumuri Subhaveni and Ors. v. Sappa Srinivasa Raoand Ors.58 where it was held that in case
there was no pressing need for the payment of debts, the alienation made at a low consideration, could
not be said to be for legal necessity.

Dev Kishan v. Ram Kishan59, it was held that any property alienated for an unlawful purpose cannot
be termed as legal necessity. In this case the alienation had been made to carry out child marriage.
51
MANU / SC / 0484/1969: AIR 1970 SC 5.
52
(1881) 6 Cal 815.
53
(1937) Mad 880.
54
AIR 1922 CP. 69.
55
(1878) 1 All 651.
56
MANU/MH/0005/2009: 2009 (111) BomLR 393.
57
MANU/KA/0497/2008: ILR 2009 Kar 118.
58
MANU/AP/0479/2004: 2004 (4) ALD 745.
59
MANU/RH/0717/2002: AIR 2002 Raj 370.
Page | 20
Jagdish Parshad v. Laxmi Narayan and Ors.60 it was held that any suit instituted for an injunction to
restrain the karta from alienating property, was not maintainable. Further, it was also held that legal
necessity cannot remain static and it is for the karta to decide the existence of legal necessity or use
property as an act of good management.

7. CONCLUSION

The position of manager in a joint family cannot be compared with a trustee or an agent or a partner in a
company under any legal system in the world. In this regard, the Privy Council observed: “The
relationship of that person is not that of a principal or an agent or a member, it is more like a trustee and
a cestui who trust.

But it is not a trustee in the sense that it is not required to account for past relationships with family
ownership, nor does it have the same obligations to economize and save as would be the case with a
paid agent or a trustee. ”

Under the law of Dayabhag there is a closer approximation in the status of a Karta and a trustee. Cowell
in Tagore Law Lectures noted: It is a kind of representative owner, its independent rights are limited on
all sides by the relative rights of others and burdened by a responsibility extended to the possession of
family maintenance.

Any service offered by Karta for the joint family is devoid of any remuneration, even if for its hard and
hard services the other members of the joint family can mutually agree to pay certain remuneration to
him. Whatever the remuneration, so paid to him will become his separate property.

Usually, the right to family management rests with the oldest member of the joint family, but may, with
the consent of other criminals, renounce this right in favor of the next family member.

Along with numerous powers, many controls on Karta have been imposed to prevent any abuse of
power. This ensures that Karta works for the benefit of the united Hindu family. The law has provided

60
MANU/PH/0705/2003: 2003 (135) PLR 481.
Page | 21
sufficient remedies to the members of the joint family to protect their interests in case of despotic
behavior by the Karta.

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Chakravarty, A. R. (n.d.). Retrieved February 09, 2019, from Legal Service India.com Web site:

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1497/Karta-of-a-Family-/-Hindu-Law.html

 Diwan, D. P. (2013). Family Law. Allahabad: Allahabad Law Agency.

Page | 22
 Gupta, A. (2019, February 09). Karta/Manager and his legal position: A socio legal study.

Manupatra Publication. Manupatra.

 Mishra, S. (2018, July 26). Retrieved February 09, 2019, from Latest Laws.com Web site:

https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/role-of-karta-in-hindu-undivided-family-huf-by-sumit-

mishra/

Page | 23