Daughter's right to be Karta under amended Hindu succession law, with equal coparcenary status and no gender-based disqualification.

The amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act recognises a daughter of a coparcener as a coparcener by birth in the same manner as a son, with equal rights and liabilities in Mitakshara coparcenary property. On that basis, a daughter who is otherwise the senior-most coparcener can act as Karta; marriage, non-participation in family affairs, or absence of male spiritual functions do not disqualify her. The decision also notes that family settlement, mutation entries, and prior severance of status may show that an HUF has ceased as a living coparcenary, even if records continue for administrative purposes. A declaratory suit was held maintainable, though deficient court-fee had to be made good.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confers on a daughter, in the same manner as a son, the right to become a coparcener and consequently a Karta of a Mitakshara HUF; (ii) whether marriage, non-participation in family affairs, or absence of male spiritual functions disqualify a female coparcener from being Karta; (iii) whether the HUF and coparcenary subsisted on the facts, having regard to the family settlement, mutation entries, and alleged prior partition; (iv) whether the suit was maintainable and properly valued for court-fee purposes.

Issue (i): Whether the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confers on a daughter, in the same manner as a son, the right to become a coparcener and consequently a Karta of a Mitakshara HUF.

Analysis: The amended provision expressly states that the daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener by birth in her own right in the same manner as a son and enjoys the same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property. The judgment held that the statute is clear and unambiguous, and its object is to remove gender discrimination and confer equal status on daughters. Once a daughter acquires coparcenary status, the right to manage the joint family property follows as an incident of that status. The limiting notion that Karta must necessarily be the senior-most male was held to be inconsistent with the amended statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The daughter, if otherwise the senior-most coparcener, can be Karta. The conclusion was against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether marriage, non-participation in family affairs, or absence of male spiritual functions disqualify a female coparcener from being Karta.

Analysis: The Court held that the amended law does not distinguish between married and unmarried daughters, and marriage does not sever coparcenary rights. Non-participation in management does not destroy the legal entitlement to be Karta, because actual management and legal status are distinct. The argument founded on supposed religious or spiritual functions was rejected for Mitakshara coparcenary, as such considerations do not create a statutory disqualification once the daughter has coparcenary rights. Societal hesitation was held incapable of overriding express legislative equality.

Conclusion: These factors do not disqualify a daughter from being Karta. The conclusion was against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether the HUF and coparcenary subsisted on the facts, having regard to the family settlement, mutation entries, and alleged prior partition.

Analysis: The Court found from the mutation records, the family settlement of 1999, and the evidence of the parties that the family had already undergone severance of status and division of shares, though not by metes and bounds. The property continued to be shown in revenue and income-tax records as HUF property only for administrative purposes, but the underlying status had become that of divided ownership among the branches. The Court further held that the Income-tax Act fiction under Section 171 does not prevent recognition of a partition in Hindu law where severance of status has already taken place.

Conclusion: The HUF had ceased as a living coparcenary in the Hindu law sense, though the property could still be described in records for limited purposes. This issue was decided in favour of the respondent to the extent that the prior partition and continued recordal did not defeat her claim.

Issue (iv): Whether the suit was maintainable and properly valued for court-fee purposes.

Analysis: The suit for declaration was held maintainable without a consequential prayer for possession because the parties were treated as being in constructive joint possession. On valuation, the Court accepted the jurisdictional valuation but held that ad valorem court-fee was payable on that value under the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and the fixed fee earlier paid was deficient.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable, but deficient court-fee had to be made good. This issue was partly against the respondent on court-fee and otherwise in favour of the respondent on maintainability.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the respondent's entitlement to represent the family before the competent authority was affirmed, and the declaration of her status as Karta was upheld, with directions regarding payment of deficient court-fee.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a daughter of a coparcener acquires coparcenary status by birth in the same manner as a son, and the right to manage the coparcenary property as Karta is an incident of that status unless lawfully displaced.

---