Karta ??
Karta ??
Karta ??
Meaning of Karta
A Karta is the manager of a joint family and its properties. They are responsible for
handling the family’s day-to-day expenses, taking care of the family members, and
protecting the joint family properties.
Typically, the eldest male member of a family is considered the Karta in a Hindu
Undivided Family (HUF). This means that the father is usually the Karta of the
family. However, the next senior male member becomes the Karta if the father
passes away. If a family member wants to give up their position, they can do so
voluntarily. In some cases, a minor can also become the Karta under the
guardianship of their guardian.
The senior most male member has the right to become the Karta. Only family
members can be Kartas; outsiders or strangers cannot become Kartas. If the senior
most male member is alive, he will continue as the Karta. If he passes away, the
second senior-most member of the family will take over as the Karta. All the
coparceners accept the position of Karta through consent or agreement.
Junior Male Member
If the coparceners agree, a junior male member can also become the Karta of the
family. Through an agreement with the coparceners, a junior male member can
take on the role of Karta.
However, the situation has changed. In the case of Mrs. Sujata Sharma v. Shri
Manu Gupta & Ors [CS (OS) 2011/2006], held in 2016, it was established that
the eldest female member of a Joint Hindu Family can be the Karta.
In the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors [Civil Appeal No
32601 of 2018], held in 2020, it was determined that daughters have equal rights in
the coparcenary property, regardless of whether the father was alive or deceased at
the time of the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act in 2005.
Powers of Karta:-
2) Right to Income:- It is general rule that all members who works or do business
out of joint family property must hand over income to Karta. It is for Karta to allot
funds to the members and look after needs and requirements, so long as family
remains joint, no member can ask for any specified share in the income.
5) Power to refer a dispute to arbitration:- Karta has power to refer any dispute
to arbitration and Arbitrator’s award is binding on all the members.
Even Karta when takes loan or execute promissory note for family purpose or for
family business joint family is liable to pay such loan.
7) Power to enter into contract:- Karta has power to enter into contract and such
contract is enforceable against the family.
8) Power of alienation:- Nobody in the family has power to alienate joint family
property.
a) Legal necessity
b) Benefit of estate.
c) Indispensable duties
Duties of Karta
1)He has the duty of maintaining the members of the family. If the Karta
improperly excludes any member for maintenance or does not properly maintain
them, then he can be sued for maintenance as well as for the arrears of
maintenance.
2)To pay taxes on behalf of the family and he can be sued for all his dealings on
behalf of the family.
Position of Karta:-
1)Karta is sui generis (of its own kind) the relationship between him and members
is not like principal or agent or like partners in a partnership firm.
2)He is the head of the family and acts on behalf of other members.
3)He stands fiduciary relationship with other members but he is not a trustee,
nobody can question what he spent unless charges of misappropriation.
The power cannot be exercised by any member other than the Karta. The joint
family property can be alienated on three grounds:
1)Legal necessity
2(Benefit of estate
3)Indispensable duty (religious & pious activities)
It is now a settled law that Karta can alienate the joint family property with the
consent of the coparceners even if none of above exceptional circumstances exists.
Kandasami vs. Somakanda (1912)
But an alienation without the consent of the coparceners which is not for legal
necessity is held to be void. Manohar vs. Dewan (1985) P&H 313
The Karta’s alienation in the aforesaid circumstances also binds the interest of the
minor coparcener. Bharat vs. Nachiar (1976)
It may be taken to be a well settled law that alienation by the Karta without legal
necessity or benefit of the estate or in discharge of indispensable duties is not void
but merely voidable at the instance of any coparcener. Raghubanchmani vs.
Ambika Prasad (1971) S.C. 776
In CIT v Gangadhar Sikaria Family Trust held that the alienation of property by
Karta without any legal necessity/ benefit of estate/ discharge of indispensable
duties is only voidable at the instance of any coparcenery and not void.