Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss.4(b), 6, 8, 19 & 30 – Joint family – Role of Karta vis-a-vis minor members – Defendant nos.1 & 2 formed coparcenary, with their father, which owned the suit property – Father died intestate – 1/3 of the property went to each son and remaining one third which was the share of the father in the coparcenary was to be inherited by defendant no.5 (wife), defendant nos.1 & 2 and three daughters viz. the plaintiff (youngest daughter) and defendant nos.3 & 4 – Plaintiff filed suit claiming that the property falling to the share of the father be partitioned – Defendant nos.1 & 2 inter alia stated that the plaintiff (minor at that time was represented by defendant no.5), defendant nos.3-5 jointly executed registered release deed relinquishing rights in the property in their favour and later, a registered partition deed was executed between defendant nos.1 & 2 and thereafter they have been in possession of the property – Suit dismissed – High Court decreed the suit – On appeal, held: After the death of the father, his interest in the coparcenary property would devolve as per the provisions of s.8 of the Succession Act since he left behind a number of female Class-I heirs – Further, conjoint reading of s.30 with s.19 clearly indicates that the property was not to be treated as a joint family property though it may be held jointly by the legal heirs as tenants in common till the property is divided, apportioned or dealt with in a family settlement – Even assuming that the property was a joint family property then also the submission of the plaitniff cannot be accepted that the Karta i.e. defendant no.1 was the natural guardian of the minor plaintiff – Karta is the manager of the joint family property – He is not the guardian of the minor members of the joint family – When a family settlement is taking place between the members of the joint family and some of the members relinquish their share in favour of the Karta, the Karta cannot act as the guardian of that minor whose share is being relinquished in favour of the Karta – There would be conflict of interest – In such an eventuality it would be the mother alone who would be the natural guardian and, therefore, the document executed by her cannot be said to be void – At best, it was a voidable document in terms of s.8 of the Guardianship Act and should have been challenged within three years of the plaintiff attaining majority – Further, in the circumstances of the present case it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff was not aware of the various transfers – Judgment of the High Court set aside and that of the trial court, restored – Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 – ss.6, 8 – Family Law. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.30 – Held: s.30 clearly lays down that any Hindu can dispose of his share of the property by Will or by any other testamentary disposition which is capable of being so disposed of by him – Explanation to s.30 provides that the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary shall be deemed to be property capable of being disposed of by him within the meaning of s.30 – This means that the law makers intended that for all intents and purposes the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary was to be virtually like his self-acquired property – Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 – ss.6, 8. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Proviso to s.6 – Object of – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The opening portion of Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as it stood at the relevant time, clearly indicates that if male descendants were the only survivors then they would automatically have the rights or interest in the coparcenary property. Females had no right in the coparcenary property at that time. It was to protect the rights of the women that the proviso clearly stated that if there is a Class-I female heir, the interest of the deceased would devolve as per the provisions of the Act and not by survivorship. The first Explanation to Section 6 makes it absolutely clear that the interest of the Hindu coparcener shall be deemed to be his share in the property which would have been allotted to him if partition had taken place immediately before his death. In the present case, if partition had taken place immediately before the death of ‘MG’ then he and defendant nos. 1 and 2 would have been entitled to 1/3 share each in the property. Nothing would have gone to the female heirs as per the law as it stood at that time. However, since partition had not actually taken place, and there were ClassI female heirs, 1/3 share of ‘MG’ was to devolve on the Class-I legal heirs in accordance with Section 8 of the Succession Act. Section 30 of the Succession Act clearly lays down that any Hindu can dispose of his share of the property by Will or by any other testamentary disposition which is capable of being so disposed of by him. The explanation to Section 30 clearly provides that the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary shall be deemed to be property capable of being disposed of by him within the meaning of Section 30. This means that the law makers intended that for all intents and purposes the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary was to be virtually like his selfacquired property. Furthermore, when Section 30 is conjointly read with Section 19, which provides that when two or more heirs succeed together to the property of an intestate, they shall take the property per capita and as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. This also clearly indicates that the property was not to be treated as a joint family property though it may be held jointly by the legal heirs as tenants in common till the property is divided, apportioned or dealt with in a family settlement. Even assuming that the property was a joint family property then also the submission cannot be accepted that the Karta i.e., defendant no.1 was the natural guardian of the minor plaintiff. The Karta is the manager of the Hindu Undivided Family and acts on behalf of the entire family. Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 is not applicable in respect of undivided interest of a minor in the joint family property but here the situation being dealt with is where all the family members decided to dissolve the Hindu Undivided Family assuming there was one in existence. [Parasn 10, 15-16] [49-D-G; 50-A; 51-E-G; 52-A-B]
1.2. A Karta is the manager of the joint family property. He is not the guardian of the minor members of the joint family. What Section 6 of the Act provides is that the natural guardian of a minor Hindu shall be his guardian for all intents and purposes except so far as the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is concerned. This would mean that the natural guardian cannot dispose of the share of the minor in the joint family property. The reason is that the Karta of the joint family property is the manager of the property. However, this principle would not apply when a family settlement is taking place between the members of the joint family. When such dissolution takes place and some of the members relinquish their share in favour of the Karta, it is obvious that the Karta cannot act as the guardian of that minor whose share is being relinquished in favour of the Karta. There would be a conflict of interest. In such an eventuality it would be the mother alone who would be the natural guardian and, therefore, the document executed by her cannot be said to be a void document. At best, it was a voidable document in terms of Section 8 of the Act and should have been challenged within three years of the plaintiff attaining majority. Further, it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff was not aware of the various transfers. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. [Para 17-19] [52-C-E; 53-A-B] Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa
Magdum and Ors. (1978) 3 SCC 383 : [1978] 3 SCR
761 ; Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Ors. v. Chander Sen and Ors. (1986) 3 SCC 567 : [1986] 3 SCR 254 ; Appropriate Authority (IT Deptt) And Others v. M. Arifulla And Others (2002) 10 SCC 342 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.