Mrs. Sujata Sharma vs Shri Manu Gupta (2011) 11 SCC 1
Author – Barsha Samantasinghar, a Student of S’o’A National Institute of Law
Court: Delhi High Court
Plaintiff: Mrs. Sujata Sharma
Defendant: Shri. Manu Gupta
Judge Bench: Justice Nazmi Waziri
ABOUT:
The Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of Mrs. Sujata Sharma vs Shri Manu Gupta is indeed a significant step towards gender equality and women’s empowerment in the context of Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs). The court’s observation about the historical equality of men and women, and the societal evolution that led to the marginalization of women, reflects a deep understanding of gender dynamics in Indian society.
The reference to legislative reforms, such as the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, which granted women coparcenary rights equal to those of men, underscores the progressive nature of the legal framework aimed at empowering women.
The court’s recognition of the entrenched societal bias against women, particularly in traditional roles such as that of the Karta in an HUF, highlights the need to challenge and overcome such biases in order to achieve true gender equality.
This decision sets a precedent for acknowledging women’s ability to take on leadership roles within HUFs, and it aligns with the broader goal of dismantling gender-based discrimination and promoting women’s full participation in all aspects of society.
LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES:
Section 6 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
It States that a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law have been granted certain rights. They are now considered coparceners by birth, with the same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as sons. This means that daughters have equal rights in the ancestral property as sons, and their share is determined as if a partition had taken place.
Furthermore, any property that a female Hindu becomes entitled to under this provision is held with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and can be disposed of by her through testamentary disposition.
In cases of a Hindu’s death after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law will devolve by testamentary, and not by survivorship. The coparcenary property is deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place, and daughters are allotted the same share as sons.
This provision seems to be aimed at rectifying gender. It looks like you’ve provided a legal text inequalities in property rights within Hindu related to the Undivided Families governed by the Mitakshara law. It grants Hindu Succession (Amendment daughters equal rights in coparcenary property and) Act, ensures that they 2005 receive a share. This amendment equal to that of sons in cases of devolution of property brought significant changes to the rights. of daughters in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law. The amendment essentially grants daughters the same rights as sons in coparcenary property, including the right to become a coparcener by birth, have equal rights in the property, and be subject to the same liabilities. It also addresses the devolution of property in case of the death of a coparcener, ensuring that daughters are treated equally in matters of inheritance. This amendment aimed to rectify gender inequalities in property rights and succession among Hindus.
Under the Hindu Succession Act of 2005, daughters have been granted equal rights in coparcenary property. The amendment to the Act allows daughters to become coparceners by birth in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, just like sons. This means that daughters have the same rights in the coparcenary property as sons and are subject to the same liabilities. Additionally, any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of this amendment is held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and can be disposed of by her through testamentary disposition.
In cases of a Hindu’s death after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law will devolve by testamentary or by succession, and not by survivorship. The coparcenary property is deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place, and daughters are allotted the same share as sons.
This amendment has significantly enhanced the property rights of daughters under the Hindu Succession Act of 2005, ensuring gender equality in matters of inheritance and coparcenary property.
FACTS:
Dr. Gupta and his sons had been residing in a house, in Delhi through a lease agreement for quite some time. Additionally they possessed belongings and shares. Tragically Mr. D.R. Gupta passed away on October 1 1971 leaving behind his five sons along, with their families.
Mr. Kishan Mohan Gupta, the son served as the Karta (manager) of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Unfortunately all five sons of D.R. Gupta passed away subsequently. In this situation the son of Kishan Gupta’s brother Shri Manu Gupta took it upon himself to declare that he is now the Karta of the HUF since he is currently the living member. However the plaintiff raised objections by asserting that she as Mr. Kishan Gupta’s daughter holds seniority, in the HUF after her father and uncles.
ISSUE RAISED:
Is the eldest daughter of the coparceners of a Hindu Undivided household eligible for the title of Karta?
ARGUMENTS:
Plaintiff:
Mrs. Sujata Sharma argued that as the first born among the co-parceners of the HUF property, she is entitled to be its Karta, a disqualification due to her gender having been removed by the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. She cited the case of Sukhbir Singh vs Gaindo Devi, where it was held that Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act overrides customs contrary to the Act. She further contended that the amendment recognized the rights of female members to be equal to male members, which should include the right to manage HUF property.
Defendant:
He argued that the right to be Karta is not specifically conferred upon female members by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that the Act only deals with succession, not management of HUF property. They contend that since Section 6 does not explicitly mention the Karta position, the management rights must be inferred from customary practices and Hindu law texts, which traditionally recognize only the eldest male member as Karta. They suggest that the amendment in 2005 granted equal inheritance rights to women but did not extend to their rights in HUF property management. He even stated further that, because the plaintiff is married, she can’t be necessary co-heir of the Hindu Undivided Family.
CASE LAWS REFERRED:
- Prakash v. Phoolwati
- Tribhuvan Das Haribhai Tamboli v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
- Raghunath Raj Bareja and Another v. Punjab National Bank and Others
- Ram Belas Singh v. Uttam Singh and Others
- Swedish Match AB v. Securities and Exchange Board, India
- Prakash Nath Khanna v. C.I.T.
- S.Sai Reddy v. S.Narayana Reddy and Ors
- Badshah v. Urmila badshah Godse and Another
JUDGEMENT:
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the 2005 amendment removed the disqualification of women as coparceners and, therefore, there is no reason why a women would be denied the position of a Karta. The court emphasized that the amendment did not stipulate any restriction on the management of HUF property by female coparceners and that the plaintiff’s marriage did not alter her right to inherit the coparcenary property.
The court, however, held that the impediment to a female member becoming Karta was her lack of co-parcenership, which was removed by the 2005 amendment. It recognized the rights of female Hindus as co-parceners and ruled that there is no legal restriction preventing the eldest female co-parcener from being the Karta of an HUF. Thus, Mrs. Sujata Sharma was declared the Karta of ‘D.R. Gupta & Sons (HUF).
The court stated that female members might be Karta if the eldest son is frequently Karta.
CONCLUSION:
Introduction of 2005 Amendment: The Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, aimed to rectify historical gender discrimination within the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) structure. It sought to enable female members of the HUF to inherit Mitakshara coparcenary property on an equal footing with male members.
Ambiguity and Understanding of the Amendment: Despite the well-intentioned nature of the Amendment, there has been persistent discrimination due to ambiguity in its terms and a lack of understanding of the recent modifications. This has led to ongoing challenges in effectively implementing the spirit of the Amendment.
Administration of HUF Property: The ruling on the 2005 Amendment has established the genuine intent of the legislature to promote gender equality within the HUF by expanding the rights of female members to include inheritance of family property.
Eliminating Gender Discrimination: The Amendment is a significant step toward eliminating gender discrimination, oppression, and the denial of women’s fundamental right to equality as granted by the Indian Constitution. It promotes a more equitable distribution of property and aims to increase the status of women in the societal hierarchy over time.
Historical Discrimination: Before the enactment of the Amendment, women were often considered physically and psychologically inferior to males within the patriarchal framework of Indian society. This led to the systematic denial of Hindu women’s right to property, perpetuating inequity and oppression.
Impact of the Amendment: The Amendment, which came into effect on September 9, 2005, incorporated the recommendations from the Law Commission of India’s 174th Report. As a result, a daughter by birth becomes a coparcener in the same way as a son, granting her equal rights and responsibilities regarding her father’s property, as well as her in-laws’.
Equal Rights for Daughters: The Amendment ensures that a daughter now enjoys the same rights and privileges as a son within the HUF. This includes full access to her father’s property and extended family property, marking a significant shift in the traditional inheritance laws.
In summary, the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act represents a crucial milestone in the pursuit of gender equality within the Hindu Undivided Family structure. Its provisions aim to rectify historical inequalities, provide equal rights to female members, and lay the foundation for a more just and equitable society by acknowledging women’s rights to inheritance and property ownership.
REFERENCE:
Websites:
- Sujata Sharma vs Manu Gupta by Ankit Kumar on June 16, 2022 https://lawplanet.in/sujata-sharma-vs-manu-gupta/
- Mrs. Sujata Sharma vs Shri Manu Gupta by Indian Kanoon on December 22, 2015 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44964360/
- Section 6, Hindu Succession Act by Indian Kanoon https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1883337/
- Mrs. Sujata Sharma vs Shri Manu Gupta by Legal Vidhiya on October 23, 2023 https://legalvidhiya.com/mrs-sujata-sharma-vs-shri-manu-gupta-226-dlt-647/
Books:
- The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Bare Act.
