Legal Reference Library

In Kali Ammal Vs. Valliyammal, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttam v. Saubhag Singh and others, (2016), held that a person could have claimed a right by birth only in respect of ancestral property in the hands of his father and the right claimable was only per stripes – No coparcener could have ever claimed a right by birth over the entire joint family properties on per capita basis.  The Hon'ble court also explained that :- Rights of coparceners can be enlisted as follows: (1) Right by birth (2) Right by survivorship (3) Right to partition (4) Right to joint possession and enjoyment (5) Right of alienation (6) Right to make selfacquisitions (7) Right to restrain unauthorised acts (8) Right to accounts

Supreme Court, in Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh, has summarized the law governing the Mitakshara joint family property, prior to the amendment of 2005. Apex Court bench comprising of Justices Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman was hearing an appeal arising from a suit for partition, which was dismissed both by Trial Court and the High Court, holding that the date of the birth of the plaintiff in 1977 the said ancestral property, not being joint family property, the suit for partition of such property would not be maintainable. The Apex Court summarized the law regarding the joint family property governed by Mitakshara School as follows. When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, having at the time of his death an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property will devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary (vide Section 6). To proposition (i), an exception is contained in Section 30 Explanation of the Act...

HIGHLIGHTS • Delhi HC in its landmark verdict said that the eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta". • The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi. • The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Hindu Succession Act to its logical conclusion. The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. (Photo courtesy: Getty images)The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rit... Read More NEW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its "Karta", the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, "Karta" denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men. "If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by vi...

The Supreme Court has ruled that a widow can be a manager of a joint family in some particular circumstances. An apex court bench gave the ruling while deciding a property dispute between cousins of a family in Uttar Pradesh in a suit filed in 1978 in favour of the mother who bought the property. A bench comprising justices Ranjan Gogoi and N V Ramana said, “Such a role (as manager) necessarily has to be distinguished from that of a Karta which position the Hindu widow cannot assume by virtue of her disentitlement to be a coparcener in the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of her husband. Regrettably the position remains unaltered even after the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act in 2005.” “Though women could not be treated as Karta of a joint family, she can be a manager of a joint family, in some particular circumstances,” it said. The bench also held that the expression ‘Manager’ can be understood as denoting a role distinct from that of the Karta. The case dates back to 1978, whe...

The Supreme Court has ruled that a widow can be a manager of a joint family in some particular circumstances. An apex court bench gave the ruling while deciding a property dispute between cousins of a family in Uttar Pradesh in a suit filed in 1978 in favour of the mother who bought the property. A bench comprising justices Ranjan Gogoi and N V Ramana said, “Such a role (as manager) necessarily has to be distinguished from that of a Karta which position the Hindu widow cannot assume by virtue of her disentitlement to be a coparcener in the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of her husband. Regrettably the position remains unaltered even after the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act in 2005.” “Though women could not be treated as Karta of a joint family, she can be a manager of a joint family, in some particular circumstances,” it said. The bench also held that the expression ‘Manager’ can be understood as denoting a role distinct from that of the Karta. The case dates back to 1978, whe...