The position of Karta in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is equivalent to that of a manager who is in charge of handling the property related affairs of the family. This was established in Suraj Bunsi Koer V. Sheo Prasad (1880) ILR 5 Cal 148. A Karta is thus the overall head of the family who is deputized with several systems to manage the family and its corresponding wealth. The position of Karta is unique in a joint Hindu family. Karta takes care of the whole family and its property and the decision given by the Karta is bound to be followed by the members of Hindu Joint Family. No one is equal to Karta in a Hindu Joint Family. The powers and position of a Karta are wider than any of the members of the Hindu Joint Family. No one can be compared with Karta among the other members of the joint family.

Who can be a Karta:-

It is a presumption that ordinarily senior most male member is the Karta and Karta is always a member in the family no outsider or stranger can become a Karta. The senior most male member so long as he is alive may be, aged, infirm or ailing continues as Karta. By his death Kartaship will pass on to next senior most male member. In the presence of senior most male member a junior cannot act as Karta but if all coparcener agree, a junior also can become a Karta. Karta owes his position by consent or agreement of all coparceners

Characteristics of Karta

The characteristics of a Karta are:

• Karta’s position is unique (sui generis). His position is independent and no one can be compared with him among the family members.
• He had unlimited power but even if he acts on behalf of other members, he can’t be treated as a partner or agent.
• He controls all the affairs of the family and has wide powers.
• He is responsible to no one. The only exception to this rule is, in case of fraud, misappropriation or conversion, he is held responsible.
• He is not bound to invest, save or economise. He has the power to use the resources as he likes, unless he is not responsible for the above mentioned charges.
• He is not bound to divide the income generated from the joint property equally among the family members. He can discriminate one with another and is not bound to be impartial. The only thing is he should pay everyone so that they can avail some basic necessities like food, clothing, education, shelter etc.

FEMALES AS KARTA

The concept of Karta was always seen as a male dominated concept since the ancient society was male dominated. This led to only males succeeding as Karta in HUF families and this trend continued in the post independence era as well. The courts in cases such as Commissioner Of Income Tax V. Govindram Sugar Mills 1966 AIR 244, held that as women were not coparceners and this debarred them for being Karta as well as was further held in Sahdeo Singh V. Ramchabila Singh AIR 1978 Pat 258. This was the held position in the pre 2005 era, however with the amendment to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act coming in the year 2005, women have been allowed as coparcener that also qualifies them to become Karta of the family, provided they are the senior most members.

Mother as Karta

It can be seen that a mother can act as karta, only in cases the succeeding karta is minor and the natural guardian of the child is mother. In general sense, it is seen that a mother or any other female cannot become the karta of Hindu Undivided Family Income Tax v. seth Govind Ram AIR 1966 SC 2.In Sushila Devi Rampura v. Income tax Officer AIR 1959 Cal, it was held that in case the next karta is minor and their natural guardian is mother, then in such a case a female can represent as a Karta of Hindu Undivided Family.

Therefore, it can be seen that the law framed is quite rigid in nature. Though a female cannot be given the position of karta but the other laws related to coparcenary in order to inherit the property are way lot different as have changed with the changing time

MINORS AS KARTA

If any Hindu Undivided family is left in a position where there is only a minor left to become the Karta, he can do so under section 21 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1897, provided the minor has a guardian who is an adult, who represents and guides him in decision making, but this only works if no other members capable of being Karta are alive.

MULTIPLE KARTA

A HUF cannot have multiple that is more than one Karta however there can be provisions made to ensure that there are multiple managing members who are coparceners and who have been collectively conferred that is the right is given after due deliberation amongst all coparceners ,the right to take necessary decisions to protect the interests of the joint family and thus manage the property but ultimately they are co-managers but not joint Karta, this was established in Nemi Chand V. Hira Chand (1) HLR 250 (Raj).

Legal Position of Karta

The karta basically represents or acts as guardian and more of it as a manager to the members of the joint family. He can create a partnership with the other family members where he invests his capital and others invest their labour and skill Chandrakant v. C.T.R AIR 1992 SC 66, but he does not create a principal-agent relationship with the family members which states that his position is ‘sui generis’.

The karta though has a wide management power but this sovereignty and fiduciary relationship does not create him to be trustee. This means that no person can ask him about what he spent unless there occur the charges of misappropriation. If any person lies on the charges of misappropriation on karta then, the burden of proof lies on that person. He has to then prove that the act of karta was malafide in nature.

The karta can also file the law suits in order to safeguard the interest of family members.Sheoshankar v. Jaddokunwar AIR 1914 (41) IA 216. Besides this, he can also represent the family in any legal proceeding even if he is not named, Amrit Sagar v. Sudesh Behai Lal AIR 1970 SC 5.He can even make a compromise provided to be in good faith for the benefit of the family, including minors. Pitam Singh v. Ujgar Singh (1878) 1 AII 651. Thus, it can be seen that the powers and position of the karta is vast and more than just a manager

REMUNERATION TO A KARTA FOR HIS/HER SERVICES

A Karta is a designated role which usually allows a person to handle a family’s wealth and also correspondingly also have his own share among it. However mostly that does not mean that a Karta is given salary/remuneration. There are certain exceptions available to this rule available in certain situations. In case the Karta was involved in some other occupation and left it to pursue this responsibility and this led him to a loss of opportunity to earn greater monetary benefits, he can be allotted some salary. This is seen as a goodwill gesture to appreciate the importance of Karta’s role in the HUF
Such remuneration is not considered as expenditure and thus cannot be deducted under the Income Tax Act; this was upheld in two cases

1. Jugal Kishore Baldeo Sahai V Commissioner of Income Tax (1967) 63 ITR 238,242
2. Ashok Kumar V. Commissioner of Income Tax Amritsar, IT Reference 17/1982, decided on 19th July 2000 (Jammu and Kashmir).

There is however certain exceptions allowed to this rule of seniority which allows junior members to become Karta

i. Non availability of the Karta to take important decisions.
ii. Relinquishment of rights by Karta through express or implied actions i.e. the Karta willingly gives away his rights.
iii. Unforeseen, distressed and exceptional situations have arisen and that have forced the Karta to be absent.
iv. The senior most Father in a family is absent, as usually he is the Karta.

v. The father’s current status or place of residence is not known and thus he cannot be reached or contacted via any means.
vi. Karta is in a remote place because of important reasons and cannot be back within a reasonable time period.

Powers of Karta

The power of Karta is vast as it can be seen through the previous descriptions as well. Thereby, here we will discuss the powers of karta in brief along with some case laws-

1.    Power of Management

The karta, being the head of the family has power to manage and run the Hindu Undivided Family. In Bhaskaran v. Bhaskaran, it was held that the power of karta with respect to management is absolute. The powers of karta are inherent and so no interference can be done even if he shows biasness or favouritism towards a family member. The acts done by him cannot be questioned until and unless found to be illegal or immoral. The most important of all is to gain the faith and confidence of the family members in order to maintain all the acts properly.

2.    Power over Income or Revenue and Expenditure Authority

Since, the members live as a part of joint family and it is the responsibility of karta to manage everything thus, any member who earns from outside the family business is liable to pay his income to the karta. Till the time, family lives together as a joint family, no person can individually ask for his share in the income. Therefore, due to this power of karta he is liable to all the funds, revenues and expenditures of the members. This automatically grants him the power to manage accounts and have a control over them.

3.    Power of representation

The karta has right to represent in all legal, religious or social matters in the family. In general, all the acts of the family are represented by the karta be, it for the contracts, business purposes or any other purpose and does not has a corporate existence. Even if a case is filed against the whole family or business suit, then the karta can represent himself instead of other members. The act of karta is bound among all the members of the family, including the minors. A Karta is supposed to be the HUF’s representative on all legal, social, religious and revenue associated situations and litigations that involve immovable property of the HUF. A suit against Karta also binds all members, coparceners and minors as seen in the case of Rajayya V. Singa Reddy AIR 1956 Hyd 200. If a Karta does not fight a case with sincerity or loses it because he willingly wanted so such a decree cannot be reversed on such grounds raised by other members of the HUF- Krishnamurthi V.Chidambaram (1946) ILR Mad 670

4.    Power to enter into Compromise

Karta can enter into any compromise for the issues related to the joint family. The compromise made may be in regard to family debts and other related transactions. Such compromise must not be malafide else can be challenged during partition. A karta can even compromise a suit pending in court for which the members of the family shall be bound. However, a minor in such a case can take the advantage to file a suit in the court, under Order 32, Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code.

5.    Power to enter into Contract

The karta explicitly has power to enter into the contract on behalf of the family members for which all of them shall be equally bound. However, if the karta enters into a family contract then it is specifically enforceable against the other members as well.

6.    Power to enter into Contract-debts

Since all the actions are binding over other family members, similarly any debt taken by karta is binding upon all the members of the family. They cannot escape the liability to pay off the debt even by the act of partition. The Karta can acknowledge debts accrued by the HUF and pay interest on the, as seen in Ananda Charan V. Jhatee Charan AIR 1935 Cal 648 It is to be noted that karta cannot treat the estate of minor as a security for some loan, not even to start a business of ancestral nature. The debts are binding on the family only if following conditions are fulfilled-

– Debt is incurred for some business purpose

– Debt is taken for some family purpose such as legal necessity, benefit of estate and other purposes

7.    Power to refer arbitration

The karta has right to refer to arbitration for the interest of the family, including minors who are bound by the award provided over it.Karta can arbitrate that is settle disputes amongst the members of the family as seen in the case of Jagannath V. Munnu Lal (1894) ILR 16 All 231. He cannot enter into a compromise for personal gains; this was established in Bhola Prasad V. Ram Kumar (1932) ILR 11 Pat 399. If such compromise is for family’s welfare, coparceners, minors and other members cannot question it- Nawal Kishore V. Sardar Singh AIR 1935 Lah 667.

8.    Power of alienation

The karta has power to alienate the property provide it must be done by-

• Consent of all co-parceners
• For legal reason
• For benefit of reasons

If the property is alienated for the benefit of estate then the consent of other coparceners is not necessary. The karta can even mortgage the property for the benefit of the members. Provided that such as act must be done as a prudent owner G. Shiva Kumari v. Indian Overseas Bank. This sale of mortgage can even be used to pay debts that were taken for the personal gains. During such sale, no third party has right to restrain the karta by injunctionSunil Kumar v. Ram Prasad The karta is liable to show that no malafide or immoral behaviour has been shown by him. However, a karta cannot be prevented to alienate the common property.

DUTIES & LIABILITIES

Deliver details of accounts at time of partition- A Karta is under no obligation to keep details of accounts- money received or spent unless a request for partition is demanded by other coparceners, he can force the Karta to produce such details. This was established in Girijanandini Devi V. Brijendra Narain AIR 1967 SC 1187. In the case of Gopal V. Trimbak AIR 1953 Nag 195, it was established that only present accounts can be rendered on the date of demand by a family member. However when charges or accusations of fraud, misappropriation or conversion of joint family into personal acquisitions are involved or the nature of business requires this, the same can be done as established in Suryanarayana V. Sugamanathi AIR 1961 AP 393

(1) Duty to Render Accounts: It is the prime duty of Karta to render accounts to the other coparceners regarding the income from joint family property and the expenditures thereon. But he is not under any obligation to account for his past dealings with the family property unless there is clear proof of misappropriation or fraudulent use of the family funds or estate by him. He is liable to account at the time of partition only and then only for the family property as it exists at the time. But this does not mean that the parties are bound to accept the statement of the Karta as to what the property consisted of.

(2) Duty to Realise Debt Due To the Family: It is an important duty of the Karta to make sincere efforts to realise the debt due to family. But he cannot give up any debt, although he has got the full power to settle accounts with debtors and to make a reasonable reduction either towards interest or towards principal in the interest of the family.

(3) Duty to Spend Reasonably: It is the duty of the Karta to spend the joint family funds only for the purposes of the family. It is not his duty to save by resorting to economy unnecessarily. He must spend reasonably. If he spends unreasonably and it is not approved by other members of the family, the remedy would be to demand partition.

(4) Duty Not To Start New Business without the Consent of Other Coparceners: The Karta must obtain the consent of other coparceners before starting a new business, as he cannot impose the risk of a new business upon the minor as well as adult members of joint family. In P.S. Sairam v. P.S. Rama Rao Pisey, Karta of the family uses joint family property for his separate business. He has started business by taking loan from market, in the premises of Joint-Hindu property. This property was not used only by the Karta, but also by junior members of Joint family. In this case, the Supreme Court observed that business carried on by Karta cannot be treated to be the joint family business and that properties acquired out of income of said business, have got to be treated as self acquisitions of Karta.

(5) Duty not to alienate coparcenary property except for legal necessity and benefit to the estate:It is the duty of the Karta to obtain the consent of adult coparceners before alienating the joint family property. But if he alienates the property for legal necessity or for benefit to estate, he need not obtain the consent of other coparceners. Whether the transaction is sought to be justified on the ground of legal necessity or benefit to the estate, the real question to be considered is whether it is fair and proper transaction, such as, a prudent owner would enter into, with the knowledge available to him at the time

Responsibility of Karta.

1)    Maintenance

Having the wide powers and liabilities it is the responsibility of karta to maintain the family members. If the karta does not takes care of the family then he can be even sued in the court for maintenance.

2)    Marriage

For the unmarried members of the family, the karta is liable for their marriage especially the daughters. The funds required for the marriage are taken from the joint family ownership and these expenses can be incurred by joint family funds.x

• Accounts at time of Partition

It is stated in the statutes that once; a partition is done it is difficult to unite them. However, if the partition occurs in a family then it is considered that the joint family status comes to an end. Under Mitakshara Law it means severance of interest and status which means that if members wish to separate from joint family then he has such right. After the severance, the karta will render the accounts in a manner as that of trustee or agent.

• Representation

The power of karta to be representation of the family is discussed above. Apart from having power of such representation, it is also his responsibility to represent the family in the government activities or in front of other outsiders. He is liable to pay all the taxes and can even sue or be sued on behalf of other family members.

Deliver details of accounts at time of partition- A Karta is under no obligation to keep details of accounts- money received or spent unless a request for partition is demanded by other coparceners, he can force the Karta to produce such details. This was established in Girijanandini Devi V. Brijendra Narain AIR 1967 SC 1187. In the case of Gopal V. Trimbak AIR 1953 Nag 195, it was established that only present accounts can be rendered on the date of demand by a family member. However when charges or accusations of fraud, misappropriation or conversion of joint family into personal acquisitions are involved or the nature of business requires this, the same can be done as established in Suryanarayana V. Sugamanathi AIR 1961 AP 393

Conclusion:

The concept of kartha in the Hindu joint family is not just a position of power but also serves a very particle position weather it is regarding the legal issues or regarding property issues, the karta represents the entire joint family and this saves the trouble of multiple claims of actions. centralization is the key to good management and this is provided by the karta laws has provided enough remedies to the members of the joint family to protect their interest in case of any despotic behavior by the karta

The codified Hindu family laws have done a great job by making the position of Karta more organized, equitable and accountable, thus transforming it from an ancient concept to a fully functional modern one. This system has also modified itself to allow women to become a Karta as it has changed the qualifications to become one.

It is so concluded that the karta holds the position of the manager or guardian in the Hindu Undivided Family. He does not acts as a trustee or agent. He not only holds the power of management but also to manage accounts, provide maintenance, enter into contracts, take loans or pay debts for which he has a wider power. However, the power vested in karta must not be used in a malafide intention. Since all the coparceners vest their trust in him. If the karta performs any such activity that is against the interest of family members then for such a case the law has provided them several remedies. The remedies are to prevent themselves from such illicit and immoral behaviour of the Karta