The karta: position, powers and obligations
Family Law I - Hindu Law · Unit III · Topic 10 of 20 · 7 min read
On this page
Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.
Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.
1. Position of the karta
The karta (manager) is the head of the joint family who manages its property and affairs. His position:
- Sui generis. He is not a trustee, because he is not bound to account for past dealings in the ordinary way and may spend for family purposes at his discretion. He is not an agent, because his authority comes from law and not from the members. He is not a partner, because his rights do not arise from contract.
- His position arises by birth and status, not by election, though members may by consent choose a junior member.
- He represents the family in all its dealings: contracts, suits, tax assessments and transactions with outsiders.
- His powers are wide but not absolute. He can bind the family only within the limits of legal necessity, benefit of the estate and indispensable duty.
2. Who can be karta
- The senior-most male coparcener, ordinarily the father, and after him the eldest son.
- A junior coparcener, with the consent of all the coparceners, where the senior member gives up the position or is incapacitated.
- A minor generally cannot be karta; where there is no adult coparcener, a guardian manages the property on the minor's behalf.
- A woman. Before 2005, a woman could not be karta because only a coparcener could be. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills, 1965 INSC 82, AIR 1966 SC 24, the Court held that a mother (or a widow) could not act as manager of the joint family, since she was not a coparcener. After the 2005 amendment, a daughter is a coparcener with the same rights and liabilities as a son. In Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta (Delhi High Court, 2016) the court held that the eldest daughter, being the senior-most coparcener, can be the karta. A widow or mother who is not a coparcener still cannot.
3. Powers of management
- Management. He manages the property and business, decides how the income is spent, and allots funds for maintenance, marriages and education. His discretion is not open to challenge unless exercised fraudulently or for his own benefit.
- Income and expenditure. He receives the income and meets family expenses. He need not save or invest.
- Representation. He can sue and be sued on behalf of the family, and a decree against him in that capacity binds the members.
- Compromise and settlement of family claims, if made in good faith for the family's benefit.
- Acknowledgement of debts and part payment within limitation, which saves the family's debts from becoming time-barred; but he cannot revive a debt already time-barred so as to bind the other members.
- Contracting debts for family purposes and family business; the other members are liable to the extent of their interest in the joint property.
- Discharge. He can give a valid discharge for debts due to the family.
4. Power of alienation
The karta may alienate (sell, mortgage, lease, gift) joint family property, binding the shares of all members including minors, only for:
- Legal necessity: payment of government revenue and of debts binding on the family; maintenance of members; marriage of members, including daughters; funeral and shraddha ceremonies; costs of necessary litigation to protect joint property; payment of debts incurred for family business.
- Benefit of the estate: a transaction that a prudent owner would enter into in the ordinary course for the benefit of the estate, defensive or not. In Balmukand v. Kamla Wati, 1964 INSC 16, AIR 1964 SC 1385, the Court held that the test is whether the transaction is one a prudent owner would undertake, and that an agreement by the karta to sell the family's share in a piece of land, to which the other members had not agreed and which was not shown to benefit the family, could not be specifically enforced.
- Indispensable duties: pious and charitable acts such as shraddha, upanayana and gifts of a reasonable portion of property for religious purposes.
The leading case. In Hunoomanpersaud Panday v. Mussumat Babooee Munraj Koonweree (1856) 6 MIA 393, the mother of a minor, as manager of his estate, mortgaged it. The Privy Council held that the power of a manager for an infant heir to charge an estate not his own is a limited and qualified power, to be exercised only in case of need or for the benefit of the estate. A lender is bound to inquire into the necessity; if he acts honestly after due inquiry and is satisfied that the necessity exists, the charge is valid even if the necessity is not in fact proved, and he is not bound to see to the application of the money. The burden of proving necessity or bona fide inquiry is on the alienee.
An alienation without necessity or benefit is not void but voidable at the instance of the other coparceners, who may sue to set it aside. If the karta is the father, sons may also be bound by his alienation to discharge an antecedent debt under the doctrine of pious obligation (for debts before 2005).
5. Liabilities and accounts
- To maintain all members and their dependants.
- To meet marriage expenses, especially of daughters.
- To account. He is not bound to keep accounts or to account for past dealings while the family is joint, nor to show savings. On a partition, a coparcener may ask him to account for the joint property as it stands at the date of partition. He is liable for past dealings only on proof of fraud, misappropriation or conversion.
- To realise debts due to the family and to pay its debts.
- To represent the family in suits and before revenue and tax authorities.
- Personal liability. His own liability for family debts he contracts is unlimited (his separate property is liable too); that of the other members is limited to their interest in joint property.
- Not to start a new business so as to bind the family's assets, unless the adult members consent; an ancestral business may be continued.
6. Problem
K, karta of a joint family, sells five acres of family land to P to pay for his younger sister's marriage. His son, a coparcener, sues to set the sale aside, saying the family had cash in the bank. P says K told him the sale was for the marriage and that he checked the wedding arrangements before buying.
Issue. Whether the sale binds the coparceners as an alienation for legal necessity.
Law. The karta can alienate joint property for legal necessity, which includes the marriage of a daughter or sister of the family; the alienee must prove the necessity or a bona fide inquiry: Hunoomanpersaud.
Application. Marriage of an unmarried sister is a recognised family necessity. Necessity does not mean that the family has no other resource; it is enough that the need was real and pressing and the karta chose a reasonable way to meet it. P inquired into the purpose and found it genuine. Even if the cash could have been used, P is protected because he acted in good faith after due inquiry, and he need not see to the application of the price.
Conclusion. The sale is valid and binds the son. The son may at most ask K to account at partition if any part of the price was misapplied.
How this is examined
As a 10-mark essay: “Explain the position, powers and liabilities of the karta.” Write the position (sui generis), who can be karta with the woman-karta point, the powers of management, alienation with Hunoomanpersaud, and the liabilities with the rule on accounts. The alienation problem is a regular 6-mark question. Short notes: “Legal necessity”, “Can a woman be a karta?”
Now try the real questions: Family Law I - Hindu Law past question papers.