2015 (12) TMI 1646 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Affirms Daughter's Right as Karta of HUF, Upholds 2005 Hindu Succession Act Amendment for Gender Equality.

Mrs. Sujata Sharma Versus Shri Manu Gupta

Mrs. Sujata Sharma Versus Shri Manu Gupta - TMI Issues Involved:1. Proper valuation and court fee payment.2. Maintainability of the suit for declaration.3. Existence of coparcenary property or HUF.4. Plaintiff's membership in the HUF.5. Separation of plaintiff's interest upon the father's demise.6. Plaintiff's status in the HUF post-marriage and participation in its affairs.7. Plaintiff's eligibility to be Karta.8. Effect of the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act on joint family property and coparcenary law.9. Relief sought.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Proper Valuation and Court Fee PaymentThe court initially decided this issue in favor of defendants Nos. 1 to 4, but this decision was overturned in Appeal No. 293/2010 on 17.01.2013. Therefore, the issue stands settled in favor of the plaintiff.Issues 2, 3, 4, and 7: Maintainability, Existence of Coparcenary Property, Plaintiff's Membership, and Eligibility to be KartaThe plaintiff's counsel argued that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, grants equal rights to Hindu females as to Hindu males, making daughters coparceners by birth with the same rights as sons. The court cited Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which supports this argument. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Tribhovan Das Haribhai Tamboli v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, stating that the senior-most member of an HUF becomes the Karta. The plaintiff's counsel further presented evidence of the HUF's existence and the plaintiff's involvement, including letters and family settlements recognizing the HUF and the plaintiff's share.The court concluded that the plaintiff, being the eldest surviving member of the HUF, is entitled to be the Karta. It acknowledged that the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act removed gender-based disqualifications, allowing females to be Karta. Thus, issues 2, 3, 4, and 7 were answered in favor of the plaintiff.Issues 5 and 6: Plaintiff's Interest Post-Father's Demise and Status Post-MarriageThe court found that the plaintiff's rights in the HUF did not dissipate upon her father's demise and were inherited by her. Her marriage did not alter her right to inherit the coparcenary property. The court emphasized that the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act ensures equal rights for female coparceners. Therefore, issues 5 and 6 were resolved in favor of the plaintiff.Issue 8: Effect of the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession ActThe court noted that the 2005 amendment grants daughters the same rights and liabilities in coparcenary property as sons, thereby removing gender-based discrimination. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Ganduri Koteshwar Ramma v. Chakiri Yanadi, which affirmed equal rights for male and female members of a joint Hindu family. The court concluded that the amendment allows the eldest female coparcener to be the Karta, thus addressing issue 8 in favor of the plaintiff.Issue 9: ReliefThe court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, declaring her the Karta of 'D.R. Gupta & Sons (HUF).' The decree sheet was ordered to be drawn up accordingly, and the suit was disposed of in these terms.ConclusionThe court ruled comprehensively in favor of the plaintiff on all issues, recognizing her right to be the Karta of the HUF based on the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, which ensures equal rights for daughters in coparcenary property.