$~R-11

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 14.12.2015

Pronounced on: 22.12.2015

+ CS(OS) 2011/2006

MRS. SUJATA SHARMA ..... Plaintiff

Through: Ms. Mala Goel, Adv.

versus

SHRI MANU GUPTA ..... Defendant

Through: Mr. Aslam Ahmed, Mr. B.S. Jamwal &
Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Advocates for
defendant Nos.1 to 4

Mr. B.K. Srivastava, Mr. Dinesh Kumar &

Mr. Roopak Gaur, Advocates for
defendant Nos.10 & 11.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

1. The issue which is to be decided in this case is whether the plaintiff,

being the first born amongst the co-parceners of the HUF property, would
by virtue of her birth, be entitled to be its Karta. Her claim is opposed by
defendants Nos. 1 to 4 while the defendants Nos. 5 to 9 have given their
„no objection‟ to it and their „NOC‟ has been filed along with the plaint.
Therefore, defendant Nos. 5 to 9 are virtually plaintiffs. Defendants No. 10
and 1 1 state that their position is to be determined as per law. Ms. Mala

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 1 of 27

Goel, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that the parties to the
suit are the co-parceners of the D.R.Gupta & Sons, HUF.

2. The suit property comprises residential property at 4, University

Road, Delhi-110007 and some movable properties and shares such as (i)
Shares of Motor and General Finance Ltd.; (ii) Deposits with Motor and
General Finance Ltd.; (iii) Bank of Account in Bank of India, Asaf Ali
Road; and (iv) Bank Account in Vijaya Bank, Ansari Road.

3. To determine the lis in this case, the following issues were framed
vide order dated 15.09.2008:

1. Whether the suit has been valued properly and proper

court fee has been paid thereon? (OPP)
2. Whether the suit for declaration, is maintainable in its
present form? (OPP)
3. Whether there exists any coparcenary property or
HUF at all?(OPP)
4. Whether the plaintiff is a member of D.R. Gupta and
Sons HUF? And if so, to what effect? (OPP)
5. Whether the interest of the plaintiff separated upon the
demise of her father Sh. K.M. Gupta in 1984? (OPD)
6. Assuming existence of a D.R. Gupta and Sons HUF,
whether the plaintiff can be considered to be an integral
part of the HUF, particularly after her marriage in 1977,
and whether the plaintiff has ever participated in the
affairs of the HUF as a coparcener, and its effect? (OPP)
7. Assuming existence of D.R. Gupta and Sons HUF,
whether the plaintiff is a coparcener of and legally
entitled to be the Karta?(OPP)

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 2 of 27

 8. What is the effect of the amendment in the Hindu
Succession Act, in 2005 and has it made any changes in
the concept of Joint Family or its properties in the law of
coparcenary? (OPP)
9. Relief.
4. Issue 1

This issue was decided in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 by this

Court, which was subsequently set aside in Appeal No.293/2010 on
17.01.2013, therefore, this issue stands settled in favour of the plaintiff.

5. Issues No. 2, 3, 4 and 7.

Ms. Mala Goel, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that
pursuant to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as the „amended Act‟) which amended the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956, all rights which were available to a Hindu male are now also
available to a Hindu female. She submits 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. She relies upon
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which reads as under:

“6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property. —

(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*, in a Joint Hindu
family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of
a coparcener shall,—

(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in

the same manner as the son;

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 3 of 27

 (b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as
she would have had if she had been a son;

(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the

said coparcenary property as that of a son,

and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener

shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of
a coparcener:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section

shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation
including any partition or testamentary disposition of
property which had taken place before the 20th day of
December, 2004.

(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes

entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her
with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall
be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act or any other law for the time being in force in, as
property capable of being disposed of by her by
testamentary disposition.

(3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the

Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*, his interest
in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the
Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or
intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act
and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property
shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition
had taken place and,—

(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted

to a son;

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 4 of 27

 (b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased
daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at
the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving
child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased
daughter; and

(c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-

deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, as such
child would have got had he or she been alive at the
time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of
such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a
pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.

Explanation. —For the purposes of this sub-section, the

interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be
deemed to be the share in the property that would have
been allotted to him if a partition of the property had
taken place immediately before his death, irrespective
of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.

(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession

(Amendment) Act, 2005*, no court shall recognise any
right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-
grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his
father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the
ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of
such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any
such debt:

Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before

the commencement of the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005*, nothing contained in this sub-
section shall affect—

(a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son,

grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 5 of 27

 (b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction
of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall
be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the
same manner and to the same extent as it would have
been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted.

Explanation. —For the purposes of clause (a), the

expression “son”, “grandson” or “great-grandson”
shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-
grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted
prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005*.

(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a

partition, which has been effected before the 20th day
of December, 2004.

Explanation. —For the purposes of this section

“partition” means any partition made by execution of a
deed of partition duly registered under the Registration
Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree
of a court.”
6. She also relies upon the dicta of the Supreme Court in Tribhovan
Das Haribhai Tamboli v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and Ors. AIR 1991
SC 1538 which held that the senior most member in a HUF would become
the Karta. The relevant portion of the above judgment is reproduced
hereinunder:

“The managership of the Joint Family Property goes to a

person by birth and is regulated by seniority and the Karta or
the Manager occupies a position superior to that of the other
members. A junior member cannot, therefore, deal with the
joint family property as Manager so long as the Karta is

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 6 of 27

 available except where the Karta relinquishes his right
expressly or by necessary implication or in the absence of the
Manager in exceptional and extra-ordinary circumstances such
as distress or calamity effecting the whole family and for
supporting the family or in the absence of the father whose
whereabouts were not known or who was away in remote place
due to compelling circumstances and that is return within the
reasonable time was unlikely or not anticipated.”
Ms. Mala Goel further relies upon the case of Ram Belas Singh vs.
Uttamraj Singh and Ors. AIR 2008 Patna 8, which held as under. This
judgment deals with Section 6B of the Act:

“9. The suit out of which this civil revision has

arisen had been filed in the year 2006 much after coming
into force of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005 (Act XXXIX of 2005) which substituted Section 6 of
the Act and provided that in a joint Hindu family
governed by Mitakshara law the daughter of a
coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her
own right in the same manner as the son and will have
the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would
have if she had been a son and shall also be subject to
the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary
property as that of a son and any reference to a Hindu
Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a
reference to a daughter of a coparcener. In the said
circumstances, 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.”

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 7 of 27

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that there is
clear admission by the defendant No. 1 of the existence of the aforesaid
HUF insofar as the said defendant, Manu Gupta, had written the letter
dated 3.10.2006 (Ex.P-3) to the Military authorities/Mukul
Gupta/defendant No.6 as Karta of the said HUF. This letter was written
ascertaining his right as the Karta of the HUF by virtue of being the eldest
living male member of the HUF; indeed, the said letter refers to the
aforesaid HUF four times over. Similarly, identical letters have been
written on 08.09.2006 (Ex. P-4) to defendant No. 9, viz. Shri Bharat Gupta.

The learned counsel also refers to Ex. PW3/C which is an extract

from a note sheet. No. 36, Clause 2 whereof reads as under:

“(i) After perusing the record available in the file

it reveals that Bungalow No.4, University Road
Kingsway Camp, Delhi admeasuring an area of 25750
Sq. yards or 5.32 acres was held on Lease in Form „B‟
Cantt Court 1899 in Perpetuity dated 25.07.1906 duly
registered as number 2239 Book No. 1 Vol. No. 615 on
pages 8 to 54 dated 31.08.1906 on payment of an annual
rent of Rs.12/- in favour of Sh. D.R. Gupta, who died on
01.10.71.
(ii) The subject property has also been declared in
the name of HUF and mutated in favour of the Legal
Heirs of Late Sh. D.R. Gupta namely (1) Sh. Kishan
Mohan (2) Shri Mohinder Nath Gupta (3) Shri Jatinder
Nath Gujpta (4) Shri Ravinder Nath Gupta and (5) Sh.
Bhupinder Nath Gupta.
(iii) The above named individuals have also been
declared as joint owners of the Lease hold rights of the
subject property. Shri Kishan Mohan Gupta died on 17-
2-1984 and names of his Legal Heirs have been

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 8 of 27

 substituted in the names of his Legal Heirs have been
substituted in the record of this office.
In his deposition on 18.07.2013, PW-3, one Mr. N.V. Satyanarayan,
Defence Estate Officer, Delhi Circle, has admitted that the mutation of
Bungalow No. 4, University Road, Delhi had been done in the name of
Shri R.N. Gupta (Karta); that it is borne out from the summoned record,
i.e., a copy of the letter dated 01.06.85, addressed to Mrs. Shanta K.
Mohan, w/o Late Sh. Kishan Mohan, 18, Anand Lok, New Delhi regarding
mutation in the name of successor of Late Sh. Kishan Mohan, Karta
(JHUF) in respect of 4, University Road, Delhi and letter dated 5.8.2003
from his office addressed to Sh. R.N. Gupta (Karta) & others, 4, University
Road, Delhi on the subject “Mutation of Bungalow No.4, University Road,
Delhi in the name of Legal Heirs.” In this letter, it was contended that Mr.
R.N. Gupta was the sole surviving son of Mr. D.R. Gupta and that he was
thus the Karta of the said JHUF.

8. It is not in dispute between the parties that the plaintiff is the eldest
surviving member of the HUF. Accordingly, she seeks a decree in terms
of the relief sought in the suit.

9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relies upon the case of
Raghunath Rai Bareja and Another vs. Punjab National Bank and
Others (2207) 2 SCC 230 which held that, under the Dayabhaga School
of Law, an unborn son cannot have a right in the property because the said
son cannot perform Shradha whereas, under the Mitakshara School of
Law, an unborn son in the womb of his mother gets a share in the ancestral
property. The rights of an unborn son in the mother‟s womb under the

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 9 of 27

Dayabhaga School of Law are premised on the ability of the child to offer
a rice ball or to conduct such necessary rituals for the benefit of the
departed souls of his ancestors. Under the Mitakshara School of Law,
emphasis is on the right of inheritance of the child and therefore, it rests
upon consanguinity rather on upon the inheritance efficacy. It is contended
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 aspects of inheritance, which would include the right
to manage a ritual or property as its Karta, being the eldest of the co-
parceners. She submits that by virtue of the family settlement dated
01.04.1999 (Ex. PW1/5), the rights of the parties, then existing, were
settled. It was agreed that:

“2. The parties hereto confirm and declare that the

oral family settlement dated 18.01.1999 was arrived at on the
following terms:
2.1 The parties acknowledge and confirmed that the parties
hereto are the members of the Hindu Undivided family D.R.
Gupta and Sons (HUF) and each having share in the
movable and immovable properties presently owned by the
Hindu Undivided Family as under:
(a)Shri Krishan Mohan Gupta (The eldest son of late Shri
D.R. Gupta who died on 17th Feb., 1984) and is survived by
his wife Smt. Shanta K. Mohan And Mrs. Sujata Sharma &
Mrs. Radhika Seth, daughter, heirs to the party of the “First
part” - 1/5th share.
(b) Shri Mahendra Nath Gupta as Karta (party of the
“Second part ) - 1/5th share
(c) Mr. Ravinder Nath Gupta (party of the Third part)
- 1/5th share

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 10 of 27

 (d) Shri Bhupinder Nath Gupta (party of the “Fourth)
- 1/5th Share
(e) Mr. Jitender Nath Gupta (party of the “Fifth part”)
- 1/5th share
2.2 The parties acknowledge and confirm that the Hindu
Undivided family owns and possesses the following movable
and immovable properties.
(a) Bunglow No.4, Universtiy Road, Delhi.
(b) Share of Motor and General Finance Ltd. (4308
shares)
(c) Bank account of Hindu Undivided family D.R. Gupta
& Sons (HUF) with Bank of India, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
(d) Bank account with Vijiya Bank, Ansari Raod, New
Delhi.
(e) Deposit with the Motor & General Finance Ltd. of
Rs.6,400/- plus accumulated interest thereon.
2.3 The parties effected partition of Hindu Undivided
family D.R. Gupta & Sons (HUF) and that the parties being
the member of the said Hindu Undivided family were entitled
to and were owners of the movable and immovable properties
of the said Hindu Undivided family mentioned in para 2.2
above to the extent as under:
a) Shri Krishan Mohan Gupta (The eldest son of late Shri
D.R. Gupta, who died on 17th Feb. 1983) and is survived by
his wife Smt. Shanta K Mohan and Mrs. Sujata Sharma &
Mrs. Radhika Seth, daughter, heirs to the party of the “First
part”. 1/5th share
b) Shri Mahendra Nath Gupta (as karta of the “Second
party”) 1/5th share
c) Mr. Ravinder Nath Gupta (Party of the
“Third part”) 1/5th share

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 11 of 27

 d) Mr. Bhupinder Nath Gupta (Party of the
“Fourth Part”) 1/5th share
e) Mr. Jitender Nath Gupta (Party of the
“Fifth part”) 1/5th share
3. The Parties acknowledges that the party of the second,
third, fourth, part are presently residing in the Hindu
Undivided family property No. 4, University Road, Delhi and
that they shall continue to reside therein till any three parties
herein jointly decide and convey their intention to the other
parties herein that the said property No. 4 University Road,
Delhi be put to sale/development then the said property shall
be put up for sale/development immediately by all the parties.
Party of the second, third and fourth part within six months
thereof and thereafter will vacate the said property.
4. Sale or development of the said property would be
taken up only if the total consideration is equal to or in
excess of Rs. 20 Crores. It was further agreed that out of the
total consideration received, first one crore would be away at
1/3rd each to the 3 parties two, three and four who are
residing on the premises towards relocation expenses and the
balance consideration then would be divided in five equal
parts.
It was further agreed that under the said family oral family
settlement, in the event the parties of the second, third and
fourth part are desirous of purchasing the said property,
either singly or jointly then the market value of the said
property shall be determined and the parties desirous of
purchasing would be pay all the other parties who are selling
their share the value of their share as determined by the
market price of the said property. In case the purchase is
made by any one or two of the parties of the second, third &
fourth part then the parties/party out of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th
parties who are not the purchaser and are being asked to
vacate the premises occupied by them would be paid their
share of the relocation expenses as described in earlier in
clause 4 of the agreement.

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 12 of 27

 It was further under the said oral family settlement that till
such time that the permission of (sic.) competent authority to
subdivide or to construct the said property is received the
two families who are not in occupation of the said property
would not demand demarcation or setting aside of their share
in the property. However, once the permission to construct
and subdivide is received then it would be their right to
demand demarcation and possession of their share in the
said property. In case on demarcation if anyh one(sic) or two
or all out of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th parties move out of their
present constructed portion that they are occupying, then the
affected party/parties would be paid relocation expenses as
described earlier in Clause 4 of the agreement. In such event,
the parties 2, 3 & 4 will be aloowed a minimum, period of six
months to vacate the respective premises.”
10. The plaintiff is the daughter of Kishan Mohan Gupta, who is one of
the acknowledged coparceners of the said HUF and was thus a party. She
had signed the settlement as a member of the family and her signatures
would have to be read as one of the parties. Her signatures would testify
that she has a share in the property otherwise her signature would not be
necessary.

11. Ms. Goel, the learned counsel, further submits that the share of a
Karta is restricted by restraints placed upon the Karta inasmuch as no
rights can be created nor can the property be appropriated to the detriment
and exclusion of any of the co-parceners.

12. In the circumstances, issue Nos.2, 3, 4 and 7 are answered in the

affirmative in favour of the plaintiff.

12. On behalf of defendant Nos. 10 and 11, the learned counsel, Mr. B.
K. Srivastava, submits in support of the plaintiffs claim, that the stipulation

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 13 of 27

in Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act,1946, which devolves interest
in co-parcenary right, is clear and unambiguous and does not call for any
interpretation; that any reference to Hindu Mitakshara Law would be
deemed to include a daughter with equal rights in the coparcenary, no other
view regarding succession is permissible in view of the overriding effect as
per Section 4. For literal rule of interpretation, he relies upon the dicta of
the Supreme Court in Raghunath Rai Bareja and Another vs. Punjab
National Bank and Others (2007) 2 SCC 230.

“40. It may be mentioned in this connection that the

first and foremost principle of interpretation of a statute
in every system of interpretation is the literal rule of
interpretation. The other rules of interpretation e.g. the
mischief rule, purposive interpretation etc. can only be
resorted to when the plain words of a statute are
ambiguous or lead to no intelligible results or if read
literally would nullify the very object of the statute.
Where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and
unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles
of interpretation other than the literal rule,
vide Swedish Match AB vs. Securities and Exchange
Board, India, AIR2004 SC 4219. As held in Prakash
Nath Khanna vs. C.I.T. 2004 (9) SCC 686, the language
employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the
legislative intent. The legislature is presumed to have
made no mistake. The presumption is that it intended to
say what it has said. Assuming there is a defect or an
omission in the words used by the legislature, the Court
cannot correct or make up the deficiency, especially
when a literal reading thereof produces an intelligible
result, vide Delhi Financial Corporation vs. Rajiv

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 14 of 27

 Anand 2004 (11) SCC 625. Where the legislative intent
is clear from the language, the Court should give effect
to it, vide Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Road
Rollers Owners Welfare Association 2004(6) SCC 210,
and the Court should not seek to amend the law in the
grab of interpretation.”

13. The learned counsel further relies upon Ganduri Koteshwar Ramma
& Anr. v. Chakiri Yanadi & Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 788 which, in the context
of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, held that rights in the co-
parcenary property among male and female members of a joint Hindu
family are equal on and from 9.9.2005. He submits that the legislature has
now conferred a substantive right in favour of the daughters; that by
Section 6, the daughter of the co-parcenar shall have same rights and
liabilities in the co-parcenary property as she would if she had been a son;
thus, on and from 9.9.2005, the daughter is entitled to a share in the HUF
property and is a co-parcenar as if she had been a son. The Supreme Court
relied upon its own judgment in S.Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy and
Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 647 which held that the Hindu Succession Act was a
beneficial legislation and had been placed on the statute book with the
objective of benefitting a woman‟s vulnerable position in society. Hence,
the statute was to be given a literal effect. It is, however, required to be
noted that the Court was then considering Section 29(a) of the Act and not
Section 6.

14. The learned counsel for the defendant further submits that it is
necessary to take into consideration Section 29(a) of Hindu Succession
(Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986 which is para materia to Section

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 15 of 27

6 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956. Therefore, the principle laid down in
S.Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy and Ors. (supra) which is referred to in
Ganduri Koteshwar Ramma & Anr. v. Chakiri Yanadi & Anr. (supra)
ought to be followed. Ergo, the right of the eldest male member of a co-
parcenary 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. It is further submitted that this Court in
Sukhbir Singh vs Gaindo Devi, RFA(OS)30/1974 (CM Application
2730/2014) 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.

15. However, the learned counsel for defendant Nos. 1 to 4 submits 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. He also relied upon para 13 of the judgment in
Tribhovan Das Haribhai Tamboli v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and Ors.
(supra) which reads as under:

“13. In Raghavachariar's Hindu Law Principles and Precedents,

Eighth Ed., 1987 in Section 275 at p. 239 stated thus:

So long as the joint family remains undivided, the senior

member of the family is entitled to manage the family

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 16 of 27

 properties, and the father, and in his absence, the next senior-
most male member of the family, as its manager provided he is
not incapacitated from acting as such by illness or other
sufficient cause. The father's right to be the manager of the
family is a survival of the patria potestas and he is in all cases,
naturally, and in the case of minor sons necessarily the
manager of the joint family property. In the absence of the
father, or if he resigns, the management of the family property
devolves upon the eldest male member of the family provided he
is not wanting in the necessary capacity to manage it.”

16. He submits that the 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.

17. The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 4 further refers to
paras 8 & 9 of the written statement regarding the powers and functions of
a Karta which are of wide amplitude. Finally, he submits that the
limitation apropos customs under Section 4 is not comprehensive. He
submits that Section 6 defines the rights only with respect to the
inheritance of property and not its management; therefore, the undefined
rights will have to be gleaned from customs as well as from the
interpretation of ancient texts regarding Hindu religion. He submits that
insofar as the right of management has not been specifically conferred on a
female Hindu, the customary practice would have to be examined. In

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 17 of 27

support of his contention, the learned counsel relies upon the judgement of
the Supreme Court in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. (2014) 1
SCC 188, more particularly paras 13, 14, 16, 20 & 22. He also contends
that the legislations regarding succession between Hindus were enacted for
the purpose of removing obstacles and enabling inheritance of property by
people with mental disabilities or injuries. Hence, the following
enactments were made:-

1. Hindu Inheritance Act, 1928

2. Hindu Law of Act, 1929
3. Hindu Amendment Right to Property Act, 1937

19. The learned counsel submits that even the Hindu Succession Act of
1956 has sought to remove the obstacles in the succession of intestate
properties between the Hindus. He submits 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 female coparcenor to the management of a
HUF which, according to ancient Hindu text, vests in the eldest male
member of the coparcenary.

20. The learned counsel for defendant Nos. 10 and 11 promptly rebuts
this contention by referring to the objects and reasons of the Hindu
Succession Act, 2005 which reads inter alia:-

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 18 of 27

 “2. Section 6 of the Act deals with devolution of interest of
a male Hindu in coparcenary property and recognises the rule
of devolution by survivorship among the members of the
coparcener. The retention of the Mitakshara coparcenary
property without including the females in it means that the
females cannot inherit in ancestral property as their male
counterparts do. The law by excluding the daughter from
participating in the coparcenary ownership not only
contributes to her discrimination on the ground of gender but
also has led to oppression and negation of her fundamental
right of equality guaranteed by the Constitution having regard
to the need to render social justice to women, the States of
Andhra Pradesh Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra
have made necessary changes in the law giving equal right to
daughters in Hindi Mitakshara coparcenary property. The
Kerala Legislature has enacted the Kerala Joint Hindu
Family System (Abolition) Act, 1976.

3. It is proposed 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.”

21. He 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.

The effect of deletion of sub-Section 2 Section 4 of the unamended

Act has been enunciated in a judgment of this court in Nirmala & Ors. v.

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 19 of 27

Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., ILR(2010)Supp.(1) Delhi413 para
13 of which reads as under:

13. The relevant sections of the HSA are reproduced

hereunder:
Old Section 6 before substitution by the Amendment Act:
6. Devolution of interest of coparcenary property.- When a
male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having at
the time of his death an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary
property, his interest in the property shall devolve by
survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary
and not in accordance with this Act:
PROVIDED that, if the deceased had left him surviving a
female relative specified in class I of the Schedule or a male
relative specified in that class who claims through such female
relative, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara
coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate
succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by
survivorship.
Explanation I: For the purposes of this section, the interest of
Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share
in the property that would have been allotted to him if a
partition of the property had taken place immediately before his
death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition
or not.
Explanation 2: Nothing contained in the proviso to this section
shall be construed as enabling a person who has separated
himself from the coparcenary before the death of the deceased
or any of his heirs to claim on intestacy a share in the interest
referred to therein." New Section 6after the Amendment Act:
6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.-(1) On and
from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment)
Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara
law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,-

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 20 of 27

 (a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same
manner as the son;
(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she
would have had if she had been a son;
(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said
coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a
Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a
reference to a daughter of a coparcener:
Provided that nothing contained in this Sub-section shall affect
or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any
partition or testamentary disposition of property which had
taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.
(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by
virtue of Sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents
of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded,
notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or any other
law for the time being in force, as property capable of being
disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.
(3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the property
of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall
devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case
may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the
coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as
if a partition had taken place and,-
(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a
son;
(b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased
daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the
time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such
pre -deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and
(c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or
of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had
he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 21 of 27

 to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son
or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be. Explanation.-
For the purposes of this subsection, the interest of a Hindu
Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the
property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of
the property had taken place immediately before his death,
irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.
(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognise any right to
proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the
recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-
grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under
the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great-grandson to
discharge any such debt:
Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the
commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005, nothing contained in this Sub-section shall affect-
(a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son,
grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or
(b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any
such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable
under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to
the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been
enacted.
Explanation.-For the purposes of Clause (a), the expression
"son", "grandson" or "great-grandson" shall be deemed to refer
to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be,
who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition,
which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section "partition" means
any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 22 of 27

 registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or
partition effected by a decree of a court.
Sections 8 and 9:
8. General rules of succession in the case of males. - The
property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve
according to the provisions of this Chapter-
(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I
of the Schedule;
(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs,
being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule;
(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of two classes, then upon
the agnates of the deceased; and (d) lastly , if there is no
agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.
9. Order of succession among heirs in the Schedule. -Among
the heirs specified in the Schedule, those in class I shall take
simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs; those in
the first entry in class II shall be preferred to those in the
second entry; those in the second entry shall be preferred to
those in the third entry; and so on in succession.
Ms. Mala Goel, the learned counsel for plaintiff refers to the same
locus classicus by Mulla on principles of Hindu laws which states as
under:

“By virtue of the new provision, a daughter of a

coparcener in a joint Hindu family governed by the
Mitakshara law now becomes a coparcener in her own right
and thus enjoys rights equal to those hitherto enjoyed by a son
of a coparcener. The implications of this fundamental change
are wide. Since a daughter now stands on an equal footing
with a son of a coparcener, she is now invested with all the
rights, including the right to seek partition of the coparcenary
property. Where under the old law, since a female could not

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 23 of 27

 act as karta of the joint family, as a result of the new
provision, she could also become karta of the joint Hindu
family”

22. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further relies 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. She argues that it is in this context, 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.

23. Insofar as the plaintiff father had passed away prior to the aforesaid
amendment and there being no testamentary succession in her favour she
would not have any rights into the co-parcenary. Upon the query put to
counsel he submits that if the survivor of Mr. Krishan Mohan Gupta had
been male then he would have rights in the co-parcenary.

24. In the present case, the right of the plaintiff accrued to her upon the
demise of the eldest Karta. Indeed, there is a correspondence in this regard
between her and the Land and Building Department. In any case, it is not
denied that she is the eldest of the co-parceners. By law, the eldest co-
parcener is to be karta of the HUF.

25. It is rather an odd proposition that while females would have equal
rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be
curtailed when it comes to the management of the same. The clear
language of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act does not stipulate any

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 24 of 27

such restriction. Therefore, the submissions on behalf of defendant Nos. 1
to 4 which are to the contrary are untenable.

26. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh,

Nagpur and Bhandara vs. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills, AIR 1966 SC24
the Supreme Court had held that:

“The decision of the Orissa High Court in Budhi Jena v. Dhobai

Naik followed the decision of the Madras High Court in V.M.N.
Radha Ammal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, wherein
Satyanarayana Rao J. observed :
"The right to become a manager depends upon the fundamental
fact that the person on whom the right devolved was a
coparcener of the joint family... Further, the right is confined to
the male members of the family as the female members were not
treated as coparceners though they may be members of the joint
family."
17. Viswanatha Sastri J. said :
"The managership of a joint Hindu family is a creature of law
and in certain circumstances, could be created by an agreement
among the coparceners of the joint family. Coparcenership is a
necessary qualification for managership of a joint Hindu
family."
18. Thereafter, the learned judge proceeded to state :
It will be revolutionary of all accepted principles of Hindu law
to suppose that the senior most female member of a joint Hindu
family, even though she has adult sons who are entitled as
coparceners to the absolute ownership of the property, could be
the manager of the family... She would be guardian of her
minor sons till the eldest of them attains majority but she would
not be the manager of the joint family for she is not a
coparcener.
19. The view expressed by the Madras high Court in
accordance with well settled principles of Hindu law., while

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 25 of 27

 that expressed by the Nagpur High Court is in direct conflict
with them. We are clearly of the opinion that the Madras view
is correct.”
27. What emerges from the above discussion, is that the impediment
which prevented a female member of a HUF from becoming its Karta was
that she did not possess the necessary qualification of co-parcenership.
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is a socially beneficial legislation; it
gives equal rights of inheritance to Hindu males and females. Its objective
is to recognise the rights of female Hindus as co-parceners and to enhance
their right to equality apropos succession. Therefore, Courts would be
extremely vigilant apropos any endeavour to curtail or fetter the statutory
guarantee of enhancement of their rights. Now that this disqualification has
been removed by the 2005 Amendment, there is no reason why Hindu
women should be denied the position of a Karta. If a male member of an
HUF, by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a
female 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 inherited 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.

29. In these circumstances, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff

in terms of the prayer clause, and she is declared the Karta of „D.R. Gupta
& Sons (HUF)‟.

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 26 of 27

30. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.

31. The suit is disposed off in the above terms.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J

DECEMBER 22, 2015

CS(OS) 2011/2006 Page 27 of 27