0% found this document useful (0 votes)
10 views8 pages

CASE COMMENT

The case of Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta revolves around the rights of a female member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) to be declared as the Karta following the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, affirming that the amendment removed discrimination based on gender, allowing her to inherit and manage the HUF property. The judgment established that the eldest female coparcener has the same rights as her male counterparts, thus enabling her to act as Karta of the HUF.

Uploaded by

ankitaa1905
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
10 views8 pages

CASE COMMENT

The case of Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta revolves around the rights of a female member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) to be declared as the Karta following the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, affirming that the amendment removed discrimination based on gender, allowing her to inherit and manage the HUF property. The judgment established that the eldest female coparcener has the same rights as her male counterparts, thus enabling her to act as Karta of the HUF.

Uploaded by

ankitaa1905
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

CASE REVIEW OF SUJATA SHARMA V.

MANU GUPTA

4.3 Law of Intestate and Testamentary Succession


(Project Final Draft)

Submitted by-
ANKITA PANDEY
UID No.: UGJ21-03
B.A.LL.B.(Hons. In Adjudication and Justicting)
Year: II Semester: IV

Submitted to-
Prof. Priti
(Assistant Professor of Law)

March 2023
MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR
1
List of Statutes

· The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.


· The Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
· The Industrial Disputes Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 1956.
· The Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.

List of Cases

· Engineer Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles……………………………………………...07


· Karnal Leather Karmchari Sangathan v. Liberty Footwear Co………………………..07
· North Orissa Worker’s Union v. State of Orissa………………………………………06
· Rohtas Industries v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union…………………………………...08
· Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate………………………..05

List of Abbreviations

· Ltd. Limited.
· no. Number.
· p.p. Page Number.
· Pvt. Private.
· sec. Section.
· v. Versus.

2
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION

AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher, for the means of this project, has relied on doctrinal methods of research.
All the sources used and relied upon by this project are secondary in nature. Sources such as
books, articles, journals, blogs and other relevant materials which will contribute the researcher
for the research have been explored. No empirical research, in any manner has been done for the
project.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

SUJATA SHARMA V. MANU GUPTA (2016) 226 DLT 647


FACTS OF THE CASE

 Dr. Gupta and his sons had a long-term lease on a home in Delhi, and a few moveable items
and shares. Mr. DR Gupta died on October 1, 1971, leaving five sons and their individual
families behind.
 The Hindu Undivided Family’s Karta was Mr. Kishan Mohan Gupta, the oldest son. All five
sons of DR Gupta died afterward, and the son of Kishan Gupta’s younger brother declared
himself the Karta of the HUF because he was the oldest living member of the HUF.
 The plaintiff challenged him by stating that after her father and her uncles; she is the senior-
most member of HUF, the eldest daughter of Mr. Kishan Gupta.

ISSUES

 The issue in this case is whether the plaintiff, who is the first born among the coparceners of
the HUF property, is entitled to be its Karta by virtue of her birth.
 Whether the interest of the plaintiff separated upon the demise of her father Sh. K.M. Gupta
in 1984?

1
 Whether a D.R. Gupta and Sons HUF exists, can the plaintiff be said to be an essential
member of the HUF, especially after her marriage in 1977? Has the plaintiff ever taken part
as a coparcener in the HUF's business, and if so, what was the result?
 Whether the plaintiff is a coparcener of and legally entitled to be the Karta?
 What impact did the 2005 revision to the Hindu Succession Act have? Did it alter the
meaning of the term “joint family” or its legal implications?

ARGUMENTS

Arguments for plaintiff

 The plaintiff submits that as per the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, all rights
which were available to a Hindu male are now also available to a Hindu female. That a
daughter is now recognised as a co-parcener by birth in her own right and has the same rights
in the co-parcenary property that are given to a son. Plaintiff relied upon the Section 6 of the
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 which provides rights to daughters to be
coparcener from birth and all other same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as
that of a son.
 The plaintiff placed there reliance on the Tribhovan Das Haribhai Tamboli v. Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal AIR 1991 SC 1538 which held that the senior most member in a HUF
would become the Karta. They further relied upon Ram Belas Singh v. Uttamraj Singh AIR
2008 in which it was held that the law is made very clear that the term “Hindu Mitakshara
coparcener” used in the original Hindu Law shall now include daughter of a coparcener also
giving her the same rights and liabilities by birth as those of the son.”
 The plaintiff further submits that there is acceptance from defendant on existence of aforesaid
since the defendant no. 6 sent a letter to the military calling himself as the Karta, he
mentioned about the existing HUF about 4 times in that letter and hence, this is an acceptance
on existence of HUF. He further submits that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the
plaintiff is the eldest surviving member of the family
 Plaintiff further relied upon Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank (2007) 2 SCC
230 wherein it was held that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act extends this element of
consanguinity to female coparceners of a HUF under the Mitakshara School of Law to all

2
aspects of inheritance, which would include the right to manage a ritual or property as its
Karta, being the eldest of the coparceners.
 Defendant no. 10-11 are in support of the plaintiff and further relies upon S. Sai Reddy v. S.
Narayana Reddy wherein it was held that the right of the eldest male member of a
coparcenary extends to the female members also. In the present case insofar as the plaintiff is
the eldest member of the co-parcenary, her being a female cannot be seen a disqualification
from being its Karta since this disqualification has been removed by the amendment brought
about under Section 6 in the year 2005.
 They further submitted that this Court in Sukhbir Singh v. Gaindo Devi, has held that Section
4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 overrides all customs, texts, etc. to the extent that they
provide anything contrary to what is contained in the Act.

Arguments for Defendant no. 1-4

 The defendant no. 1-4 opposes the prayer cited by the plaintiff and submitted that section 4
has to be read in the context in which it was enacted, i.e. only those customary rights have
been overridden for which there is a specific provision made in the Act; that Section 6 does
not specifically refer to the expression Karta of an HUF and that this right has to be gleamed
from the text in Hindu law.
 On counter to the plaintiff’s arguments, they submit that S. Sai Reddy judgment only
recognizes the right of the eldest male member to be the Karta; that the amendment in 2005
only recognized the rights of a female member to equal those of male members but it did not
extend to granting them any right in the management of HUF property; that the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 only deals with succession to the intestate properties of a Hindu and
does not purport to address the issue of the management of the estate.
 They further submit that section 6 does not deals with management of the business of HUF
and insofar as the right of management has not been specifically conferred on a female
Hindu, the customary practice would have to be examined. They also states that that in
accordance with the Objective of the Act, Section 24 was regarding inheritance of a
remarried widow (which has since been repealed), while Section 14 empowers a female
Hindu to have an absolute right in property possessed by her before or after the
commencement of the said Act; therefore, that the Act never intended to extend the right of a

3
female coparcener to the management of a HUF which, according to ancient Hindu text,
vests in the eldest male member of the coparcenary.

Rebuttal by Plaintiff

 The plaintiff rebutted by stating that the objective of the Amendment Act 2005 was to
remove the discrimination as contained in section 6 of the Hindu Succession act, 1956 by
giving equal rights to daughters in the Hindu Mitakashara coparcenary property as the sons
have. Section 23 of the Act disentitles a female heir to ask for partition in respect of a
dwelling house wholly occupied by a joint family until the male heirs choose to divide their
respective shares therein. It is also proposed to omit the said section so as to remove the
disability on female heirs contained in that section. Plaintiff also submits that there is a
positive constitutional protection in favour of the women under Articles 14, 15 and 16 as well
as in the Directive Principles for the State Policy.
 They further rely upon upon the 174th Report of the Law Commission of India, which has
argued that when women are equal in all respects of modern-day life, there is no reason why
they should be deprived of the right and privilege of managing HUF as their Karta. That
Section 6 was so formulated that it covers all aspects of succession to a coparcener which are
available to a male member to be equally available to a female member also.

JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble court allowed the suit and held that by virtue of section 6 of the Amendment Act of
2005, the discrimination between male and female for rights and liabilities in the HUF are removed.
If a male member of an HUF, by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a fe-
male member. The Court finds no restriction in the law preventing the eldest female co-parcener of
an HUF, from being its Karta. The plaintiff's father's right in the HUF did not dissipate but was in-
herited by her. Nor did her marriage alter the right to inherit the co-parcenary to which she succeeded
after her father's demise in terms of Section 6. The said provision only emphasises the statutory rights
of females. Accordingly, issues 5, 6 and 8 too are found in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the court
decreed in favour of the plaintiff and declared her as Karta.

You might also like