Karta in huf
Rakhi
(Querist) 13 December 2014
This query is : Resolved
MY QUERY IS THAT IN CASE OF UNTIMELY DEATH OF THE KARTA IN A HUF....AND WITH NO OTHER SENIOR MALE IN THE HUF....CAN THE WIFE ..COPARCENCER IN THE HUF BECOME THE AUTOMATIC KARTA ?
IF NOT...WHAT IS THE SECOND OPTION ?
CAN THE SON BECOME THE KARTA EVEN IF HE IS A MINOR ?
ROHIT SHARMA
(Expert) 13 December 2014
Madame Rakhi,
1. The wife can suo motto assume the role of Karta as she is also a co-parcerner of the property. A minor cannot be appointed as Karta even if he is a son.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 14 December 2014
W.e.f. 06,09,2005, after amendments made by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 in respect of position of female member, the daughter of coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son.
A female can become a karta, but only when the male members are minors or are not in a position to manage the affairs and give a declaration to that effect and seek the permission of the Department to allow the female to manage. Champa Kumari Singhi v Revenue (1962) 46ITR81 (Cal).
Moreover, when an existing HUF is reduced to only female members, it can still continue as an HUF with one of the females as a karta. This is in view of the existence of the potential coparcenary as any widow may, in future, induct a coparcener into the family by adoption. CIT v RM AR AR Veerappa Chettiar (�70) 76ITR467 (SC).
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 16 December 2014
The correct position of law in this regard has been rightly explained by expert Mr. Rajendra Goyal, I agree with his views.
Rakhi
(Querist) 24 January 2015
our HUF is consisting of 4 members,me ,my husband,and two children who are still minors.My husband passed away recently due to prolong illness.Now I am the karta and my two sons(minors)are coparceners.My query is that my husband was holding mutual funds in HUF which I want to get transferred in the same HUF but with the karta changed.The companies also want a successor certificate or legal heirs certificate along with other documents.With only 3 of us in HUF and in this case my sons being minor,do i need to give that certificate?Because getting that is a long tedious process.The holdings are above threshold limit.
Rakhi.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 26 January 2015
Legal heir certificate is a document given by the revenue authorities in most of the States upon enquiry. This will not take much time. When the holdings are above threshold limit, the company is right in insisting the legal heir certificate or succession certificate. Though presently HUF consists only 3 out of which only one major, it does not change the legal requirement. Moreover, insisting this legal process is in the interest of investors.
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 January 2015
On behalf of the minor coparcener, she can act as a guardian, but that would not make her the Karta. A mother cannot therefore be a Karta [Magunti v. Lingaraj AIR 1956 Ori. 1].
A wife cannot act as Karta in absence of her husband [Sheogulam v. Kisun Choudhuri AIR 1961 AP 212] nor can she act as the Karta in a joint family comprising her husband and her son. [Krishnayya v. Balavankata Subbaya 1968 1 Andh. LT 197]. A Hindu widow cannot be a Karta, even if rights are conferred on her, in the deceased husband's coparcenary property. [Radha Ammal v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1951) ILR Mad. 56]
[Here I am not mentioning anything about whether the daughters born in the family, can become a Karta or not, as in this query only two minor sons exist].
In this case, the wife can act only as a 'guardian of the minor sons'.
In the instant case, according to the querist, the mutual fund certificates are in the name of the HUF. So long as they do not want to deal with it (i.e. dispose of the same), the certificates will continue to be in the name of HUF. For that the same need not be transferred. However, if she has any difficulty in operating the bank account in which the dividend from the MF is being credited, then it is at the bank's end that she has to work on.
On behalf of the minor coparcener, she can act as a guardian, but that would not make her the Karta. A mother cannot therefore be a Karta [Magunti v. Lingaraj AIR 1956 Ori. 1].
A wife cannot act as Karta in absence of her husband [Sheogulam v. Kisun Choudhuri AIR 1961 AP 212] nor can she act as the Karta in a joint family comprising her husband and her son. [Krishnayya v. Balavankata Subbaya 1968 1 Andh. LT 197]. A Hindu widow cannot be a Karta, even if rights are conferred on her, in the deceased husband's coparcenary property. [Radha Ammal v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1951) ILR Mad. 56]
[Here I am not mentioning anything about whether the daughters born in the family, can become a Karta or not, as in this query only two minor sons exist].
In this case, the wife can act only as a 'guardian of the minor sons'.
Normally to deal with immovable property, legal heir certificate is required and the same would be granted by the Revenue Authorities i.e. the Tehasildar or SDM of the area in whose jurisdiction the deceased used to reside.
The Succession Certificate is required to deal with movable property left behind by the deceased. The Succession Certificate has to be applied for and obtained from a Civil Court, in whose jurisdiction the deceased last resided at the time of his death.
However, in the present case, the Company where the MFs are held seems to need legal heir certificate. This has to be obtained from the Tehasildar / SDM's office as indicated above and submitted.
As already indicated, the querist can act only as a 'guardian of the minor sons' and not as Karta of the HUF.
If I am permitted to say so, the case laws cited by Mr. Rajendra K. Goyal have no application to the fact situation in the present case.
Guest
(Expert) 26 January 2015
Dear Author,Earlier Women were not included as Coparcenery members and according to Hindu Sages only a Coparceners could be a Karta.The Sanskrit Text empowers women to act as Karta in absence of male members.There are diverse views of Courts in this point.It must be understood that Equality for women is not just a matter of equality for the so called weaker sex but a measure of Indian Society and pragmatic nature of our civilization. Now in the Changed Position a Woman Could become Karta.
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 January 2015
Dear Querist, I think you want a legal answer and not a Bashan!
Guest
(Expert) 26 January 2015
Dear Author,In Holy bible of Christians the "Bashan" is a biblical Place first mentioned in Genesis Chapter 14 verse 5 in Holy Bible.Many Indian Courts take Oath on Holy Bible before Recording of any Statements Or Witnesses.Commenting on the Same is to Criticize the Holy Bible As well As Indian Courts.It is advised to with draw such abusive Comments.
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 January 2015
THIS IS UTTER NON-SENSE.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE LEGAL ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE QUERIST. NOT TO DISCOURSE ON ANY RELIGIOUS MATTERS! THAT SHOULD BE IN SOME OTHER PLATFORM AND CERTAINLY NOT HERE.
IF YOU UNNECESSARILY LINK THESE TO RELIGION AND THINK TO BE ABUSIVE IT IS YOUR PROBLEM. THE QUESTION OF ANY WITHDRAWAL CERTAINLY AND NEVER ARISE.
Guest
(Expert) 26 January 2015
Dear Author,The Reply of the above Person Precisely and Perfectly Suits them Selves since the Holy Bible's Bashan was brought in by them only.
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 January 2015
This fellow does not know that the word "Bashan' is not confined only to Bible as he thinks.
Guest
(Expert) 26 January 2015
Now they had changed to Bhashan from Bashan their original Recital.
Guest
(Expert) 26 January 2015
Corrected the Spelling That's Good
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 January 2015
You wanted to make a mountain out of a mole-hill as though the 'Bhashan' and 'Bashan' made a big difference.
Now I have maintained 'Bashan' itself.
Therefore, now my original reaction "This fellow does not know that the word "Bashan' is not confined only to Bible as he thinks" stands.
Guest
(Expert) 26 January 2015
In Holy Bible the Old Testament Is Holy Quran And Bashan is there in Both Holy Bible and Holy Quran as well.Not to be misused and should Regret and Apologise for the Efforts to Defame the Religions.
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 January 2015
Dear Mr. Forget about holy and unholy things. We are not here doing any religious debates.
All that I was pointing out was your answer to the query is not legally tenable.
Your comment" "It must be understood that Equality for women is not just a matter of equality for the so called weaker sex but a measure of Indian Society and pragmatic nature of our civilization. Now in the Changed Position a Woman Could become Karta" remains only your comments, and that is not a legal answer to the query of the querist.
Guest
(Expert) 26 January 2015
How and who are you to justify my replies.
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 January 2015
As a person who also knows the law on the subject.
Please note, I am not at all justifying your reply. In fact, those who know law, cannot ever justify your reply, as it has no legal backing at all.
Guest
(Expert) 26 January 2015
First of all who are you
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 January 2015
An Advocate registered with this LCI Website and knowing the law on the subject query.
Guest
(Expert) 26 January 2015
As an advocate you are at Liberty to Post your replies to the Authors with out raising your queries on my replies.If you have Non acceptance to my Replies Post it Directly to the Author and Justify it to him so that you could keep him in the Right Track.Dont try to establish your supremacy to me. You just mind your business so that I will not be involved.
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 January 2015
Absolutely not. You cannot in this Expert section give as reply something which is not at all backed by any legal provision.
I need not post it to the Author of the query.
In fact if you happen to be the author of the reply (i.e. wrong and not legally supported answer), I will definitely ask you for the legal basis on which your reply is based on.
There is no supremacy which I am trying to establish. But I do not want to suffer any ignominy to be in this Forum because of your utterly unsound and legally untenable answer.
Please take it, as an Advocate registered with this Forum, and when you give some answer which is not at all has any legal foundation, I have every right to question you and I will continue to question you in such cases.
Guest
(Expert) 26 January 2015
If you are an Excellent and Intelligent Person and if your Query is of a Knowledgeable Person I would not have Ignored your questions.I think it is Obvious.
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 January 2015
That's great!
Just simple. What is the legal basis for your reply (i) either legal provision or (ii) judicial pronouncement.
Guest
(Expert) 26 January 2015
Dear author,Refer Section 6 w:ef Sep 9th 2005.It provides Parity of right in the Coparcenary property among male and female members of Joint Hindu Family.In case of Only minors other than Lady in H.U.F. Obviously she the lady would be the Karta. It would not be legally acceptable to have a Child as Karta in absence of male adults in family. .
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 January 2015
Section 6 of the Amended HSA, 2005 talks about the equal coparcenary rights of a daughter in the family.
The querist has stated that she is the wife of the deceased and certainly not a daughter in the family. Therefore, she is not a co-parcener as far as the HUF of the deceased is concerned.
Now, therefore, how can she (i.e. the wife/wife of the deceased) be a Karta?
Guest
(Expert) 26 January 2015
Dear author,Post your Doubt which would be attended by me Promptly More Over you had Clearly Stated there is No other Adult Member in the Family H.U.F. Except the Wife of the Deceased Karta the Husband and Only the Children who are not Adults are there.No other Option is left out and Only the Widow the Wife would be the Karta.
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 January 2015
That is the crux of the matter. That precisely has been the query.
If there is no other option, according to you the widow can be the Karta. That is your view.
Has your view, any legal backing?
Have you at least cared to check up whether there are any legal backing for your views?
Guest
(Expert) 26 January 2015
Dear author ,I would awaite your queries please.I would advise to contact English Tutors for those Who do not Understand.
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 January 2015
So, you pretend that you are not able to understand this simple and straight query.
So you pretend that you don't even know that a query has been posed to you.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 26 January 2015
POVERTY OF INTELLECT IS STILL NOT ERADICATED
AS ANSWERS TO A SIMILAR QUERY IN POST BELLOW
SHOW
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/can-widow-become-karta-after-her-husband-death--100796.asp#.VMY9Hv6UckM
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 26 January 2015
HOWEVER I VIEW THINGS AS FOLLOWS:
The solution lies in our religious text which is Dharmashastra. It says that alienation can be done by the wife of an absent, or the widow of a dead manager, of family property belonging to numerous minors, unable to enter into contractual relationships in their own persons, yet reasonable for maintaining dependants and carrying the various burdens of the family. Here, the benefit of the family is the touchestone, not the identity of the alienor. The acts of a female member acting as a manager should be positive for the benefit of the Family. Such acts will be binding upon the manager when he returns or appears on the scene by simply coming of age as the case may be. It is further supported by Katyana, Smritichandrika, Bhavasvamin and Yagnavalyka Smriti. Some of the Sanskrit text says -
"sishyantevasi-dasa-stri-vaiyavrittyakarais ca yat Kutumbahetor ucchinam vodhavyam tat Kutumbina"
The manager (or householder, actual or eventual) is liable to accept (or admit) all alienations made for the purposes of the Family by a pupil, apprentice, slave, wife, agent or bailiff.
Narada says-
"Na ca bharya-kritam rinam kathancit patyur abhavet Apat kritad rite, pumsam kutumbartho hi vistarah"
A debt contracted by his wife never binds the husband, except that incurred in a time of distress: expenses for the benefit of the family fall upon males.
Even at this objection is being raised, ‘Are not women declared by the sastra to be incapable, or unfit for independence?” Wherever a male member of the family is available, his signature should be taken rather than that of any female’s acts. But the answer lies in the following statement. The women in question is de facto svantantra: as soon as the husband returns or her son reaches majority she becomes partantra again, but meanwhile the responsibility rests with her, and powers should obviously be allowed to her accordingly.
In Hunoomanpersaud’s case(NAGPUR) which was one of the greatest cases in the history of Hindu Law dealt with the powers of a widow mother as manager of property of her minor son, and was in reality a case in the context of manager ship rather than guardianship properly so called. The test of the lady’s act was not who she was or in what capacity she purported to act, but whether the act was necessary or in the minor’s interest as understood by the law.
In Pandurang Dahake v. Pandurang Gorle,(NAGPUR) there the widowed mother passed a promissory note for necessity as guardian of her two minor sons. She was a defacto manager and was held to have managerial powers, and the sons could not repudiate the debt.
In I.T Commr. v. Lakshmi Narayan,(NAGPUR) the mother as karta of the undivided family consisting of herself and her two minor sons entered into a partnership renewing thereby the partnership which her late husband had had with his brother. The court said that at Dayabhaga law woman could be coparcener and so possibly even managers, and noted that a female might be the manager of a religious endowment. The Act of 1937 has improved the status of the Widow.
The Madras Position
In Seethabai v.. Narasimha there the widows claimed that they were undivided members of the coparcenery by the operation of the act of 21937. They objected to the appointment of a guardian for the property of the minors. The court appointed one widow guardian of one of the minor and a stranger was appointed the guardian of the other. None of the widows it was held that could be a manager. To be a manager one must be a pukka coparcener, a male with a birth right and not a mere statuary interest. In Radha Ammal v. I.Tcommissioner, Madras a mother , guardian of minor sons , purported to execute a deed of partnership admitting a stranger as a power in the ancestral business. It was held that this was outside her powers and the deed could not be registered under section 26(a) of the Income Tax Act 1922. A woman could not be a manager. The argument that Hunoomanpersaud’s case allowed the act of a de-facto manager to be binding even if she were a woman, was not decided, much less examined. This was a weak case in Madras decision which was in any case strictly formal and anti-Quarin in approach.
The Bombay High Court Position
In Rakhmabai v. Sitabai
that a step mother as manager of a Joint Family consisting of her co-widow and minor step-son and a minor step daughter and had the power to resist the appointment of a guardian of the property of the step-son. She was the managing the estate and her authority should not, it was urged be undermined by such an appointment. The learned court said that the proper course was to appoint a guardian for the coparcenery Property. A widow could not be a manager of Joint Family Property. The case of Seethabai was agreed with.
The Orissa High Court-
In Maguni Padhano v. Lokananidhi Lingaraj10, it was held that a mother, whose husband is alive, cannot be a manager. She might indeed act as guardian of her son, if her husband was dead and perhaps as defacto guardian. But as manager she had no powers whatever. Laxmi Narayan’s case was not followed. The Principle that a woman could be a manager was decisively rejected.
The Patna High Court
In Sheogulam v. Kishun Chaudhari11, the court denied that a mother of a minor son, during the long absence of her husband , might act as karta and incur debts for family purposes. All such debts would not be binding upon the family. The case of Maguni was relied upon.
On the surface it might seem that Madras has the best of it.
THEN WHAT CAN WE CONCLUDE IS THAT:
Under the Shastric Law, a daughter on marriage ceases to be a member of the parental family, but the Amending Acts have changed her position, which is quite alien to Hindu patriarchal notions. Though her position as defacto manager was recognized when mothers acted as guardians of their minor sons after the death of their husbands, the dejure conferment of the right eluded her.
The law commission also has rightly observed that although the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 has conferred upon the daughter of a coparcener status but there is still a reluctance to making her a Karta. This seems to be patently unfair as women are proving themselves equal to any task.
Since they can act as coparcenaries then they must also be given the powers of Karta. The shastras are clear that in the absence of senior member a junior member (if he has reached the age of legal competence) may incur debts for the needs of the family, and in the absence of a male member a female member may do so. The Sanskritic texts empower women to act as Karta in instances like when the husband is away or missing or the son is yet to attain majority.
Rakhi
(Querist) 27 January 2015
I would like to thank all the experts for trying to resolve the query raised and would also like to express my unhappiness on the debate created by my query.I would like to inform that according to my gathered knowledge of HUF LAWS,If all male members are minors & natural guardian is mother,then she is the KARTA and on basis of that I have already got a document from the bank declaring and accepting me as the new KARTA in the same HUF.I think our Expert : malipeddi jaggarao has reasonably given the answer that actually it is advisable to get the succession certificate as sons being minors does not change the legal requirement.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR VALUABLE TIME.FURTHER SUGGESTIONS WHICH MIGHT HELP ME ARE INVITED. THANKS.
Guest
(Expert) 27 January 2015
Welcome Please.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 27 January 2015
Thanks to the author Mrs.Rakhi for her good gesture. At the same time, simple thanks are enough instead of analyzing the replies of experts.
