A Hindu joint family consists of the common ancestor and all his
lineal male descendants upto any generation together with the
wife/ wives (or widows) and unmarried daughters of the common
ancestor and of the lineal male descendants. Whatever the skeptic
may say about the future of the Hindu joint family, it has been
and is still the fundamental aspect of the life of Hindus.
A co-parcenery is a narrow body of persons within a joint family.
It exclusively consists of male members. A Hindu coparcenery is a
corporate entity, though not incorporated. A coparcenery consists
of four successive generations including the last male holder of
the property. The last male holder of the property is the senior
most member of the family.
In the entire Hindu joint family, the
or manager (the
English word manager is wholly inadequate in understanding his
unique position) occupies a very important position. Karta is the
eldest male member of the family. He is the Hindu patriarch. Only
a coparcener can become Karta. Such unique is his position that
there is no office or any institution or any other system of the
world, which can be compared with it. His position is
i.e. of his own kind or peculiar to himself. Peculiarity lies in
the fact that in terms of his share/interest, the Karta is not
superior and has no superior interests in the coparcenery. If
partition takes place he is entitled to take his share. He is a
person with limited powers, but, within the ambit of his sphere,
he possesses such vast powers as are possessed by none else. His
position is recognized /conferred by law. No stranger can ever be
qualified to be a karta, but an adopted son who is the eldest in
the family can be qualified.
Article 236 of the Mulla Hindu Law defines "Karta" as follows:
- Property belonging to a joint family is ordinarily
managed by the father or other senior member for the time being of
the family: The Manager of a joint family is called Karta.
In a HUF, the responsibility of Karta is to manage the HUF
property. He is the custodian of the income and assets of the HUF.
He is liable to make good to other family members with their
shares of all sums which he has misappropriated or which he spent
for purposes other than those in which the joint family was
interested. His role is crucial. He is entrusted not only with the
management of land/assets of the family but also is entrusted to
do the general welfare of the family.
His position is different from the manager of a company or a
partnership. The reason behind it is that though the coparcenery
deals with lands, assets/property but in an entirely different
fashion. When a Karta is bestowed with such a position it is
something, which takes place under the operation of law.
Who Can Be A
Senior Most Male Member: - It is a presumption of Hindu law,
that ordinarily the senior most male member is the Karta of the
Jandhayala Sreeamma v. Krishnavenamma
AIR 1957 A.P.434
In the case of Hindu Joint Family a suit to set aside on
alienation filed by the younger of the two brothers within three
years of his attaining majority would be barred by limitation if
the elder brother, who was the manager and an adult has failed to
sue within three years of his attaining majority.
The senior most male member is Karta by virtue of the fact that he
is senior most male member. He does not owe his position to
agreement or consent of other coparceners. So long as he is alive,
may be aged, infirm, or ailing, he will continue to be Karta. Even
a leper may continue to be the Karta1. However, in cases of
insanity or any other disqualifications, the next senior male
member generally takes over the Kartaship. Once this is done the
former will cease to be a karta.
So long as the father is alive, he is the karta. After his death
it passes to the senior most male member, who may be the uncle, if
coparcenery consists of uncles and nephews, or who may be the
eldest brother, if coparcenery consists of brothers.
Junior Male Member
In the presence of a senior male member, a junior male member
cannot be the Karta. But if all the coparceners agree, a junior
male member can be a Karta. Coparceners may withdraw their consent
at any time.
long as the members of a family remain undivided the senior member
is entitled to manage the family properties including even
charitable property and is presumed to be the manager until the
contrary is shown. But the senior most member may give up his
right of management and a junior member may be appointed as
Narendrakumar J Modi v. CIT 1976 S.C. 1953
Facts: - Baplal Purushottamdas Modi was the head of the HUF. Joint
family possesses many immovable properties and carried business of
various types such as money lending, etc. He executed a general
power of attorney in favor of his 3rd son, Gulabchand on Oct 5,
1948. On Oct 22, 1954 Baplal relinquished his share. On Oct 24,
1954 the existing members of the family executed a memo of
partition. However, the order accepting partition was not passed,
the contention of the appellant was that Gulabchand couldn’t be a
karta because he is a junior member and other members of the
family did not accept him as a karta.
Judgment: - It was held that Gulabchand was given the power to
manage by Baplal because Gulabchand’s elder brother was an aged
man of 70 years. And also the father of appellant died in 1957.
So, under such circumstances, Gulabchand appears to have acted as
the Karta with the consent of all the other members and hence the
appeal was dismissed.
Female Members As Karta
The concept of a “manager” of a Joint Hindu Family has been in
existence for more than two thousand years or more. Courts in
India have given diverse views: -
C.P. Berai v. Laxmi Narayan AIR 1949 Nag 128
It was held that a widow could be a karta in the absence of adult
male members in the family. It was said that the true test is not
who transferred/incurred the liability, but whether the
transaction was justified by necessity.
Sushila Devi Rampura v. Income tax Officer AIR 1959 Cal
It was held that where the male members are minors, their natural
guardian is their mother. The mother can represent the HUF for the
purpose of assessment and recovery of income tax.
Radha Ammal v. Commissioner of Income Tax AIR 1950 Mad 588
It was held that since a widow is not admittedly a coparcener, she
has no legal qualification to become a manger of a JHF.
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Seth Govind Ram AIR 1966 S.C. 2
After reviving the authorities it was held that the mother or any
other female could not be the Karta of the Joint Family. According
to the Hindu sages, only a coparcener can be a karta and since
females cannot be coparceners, they cannot be the Karta of a Joint
The above views seem to be rigid. Rigidity in law is a fatal flaw.
Since it is depended upon an ill directed question whether the
transferor was a coparcener.
Dharmashastra is one and only sure guide. According to
Dharmashastras, in absence of male members female members can act
as karta, or in case where male members if present are minors, she
can act as karta. Debts incurred even by female members under such
circumstances will be binding upon the family and must be paid out
of the joint family funds whether at the time of partition or
earlier. Often the question is raised as to whether her acts are
for the benefit of the family. Dharmashastra answers it by saying
that she might act as manager by doing acts of positive benefit
and not merely conservative/negative acts.
"The position according to the Mitakshara theory as developed by
Vijnaneshwara seems to be this, that a wife gets rights of
ownership of her husband's separate and joint family property from
the moment of her marriage and a daughter from the moment of her
birth. But Vijnaneshwara does make a distinction between males and
females and says that females are asvatantra or unfree. If we are
to translate his notion into the language of the coparcenary, I
think we can state that women are coparceners but 'unfree'
Prior to 1956, Hindus were governed by property laws, which had no
coherence and varied from region to region and in some cases
within the same region, from caste to caste.
School of succession, which was prevalent in most
of North India, believed in the exclusive domain of male heirs.
Mitakshara is one of the two schools of Hindu Law but it prevails
in a large part of the country. Under this, a son, son’s son,
great grandson and great grandson have a right by birth to
ancestral property or properties in the hands of the father and
their interest is equal to that of the father. The group having
this right is termed a coparcenary. The coparcenary is at present
confined to male members of the joint family.
In contrast, the
system did not recognize inheritance
rights by birth and both sons and daughters did not have rights to
the property during their father’s lifetime. At the other extreme
law, prevalent in Kerala, which traced the
lineage of succession through the female line.
According to Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 woman can
take only a conservative action. It is certain that guardian
acting under the act cannot undertake every class of proceeding
that would be open to a manager. Act does not purport to confer
upon the guardian the power of manager.
Former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru championed the cause of
women’s right to inherit property and the Hindu Succession Act was
enacted and came into force on June 17, 1956.
Many changes were brought about that gave women greater rights but
they were still denied the important coparcenary rights.
Subsequently, a few States enacted their own laws for division of
In what is known as the Kerala model, the concept of coparcenary
was abolished and according to the Kerala Joint Family System
(Abolition) Act, 1975, the heirs (male and female) do not acquire
property by birth but only hold it as tenants as if a partition
has taken place. Andhra Pradesh (1986), Tamil Nadu (1989),
Karnataka (1994) and Maharashtra (1994) also enacted laws, where
daughters were granted ‘coparcener’ rights or a claim on ancestral
property by birth as the sons.
In 2000, the 174th report of the 15th Law Commission suggested
amendments to correct the discrimination against women, and this
report forms the basis of the present Act. Discrimination against
women was the key issue before the Law Commission.
The amendment made in 2005 gives women equal rights in the
inheritance of ancestral wealth, something reserved only for male
It indeed, is a significant step in bringing the
Hindu Law of inheritance in accord with the constitutional
principle of equality. Now, as per the amendment, Section 6 of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 gives equal rights to daughters in the
Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property as the sons have. The
amendment was made because there was an urgent need for certainty
Though the 2005 amendment gives equal rights to daughters in the
coparcenery. An important question is still unanswered whether
women or daughters can be allowed to become managers or karta of
the joint family.
The objection to this issue of managing a joint family as
visualized is that daughters may live away from the joint family
after their marriage but it is well appreciated that women are
fully capable of managing a business, taking up public life as
well as manage large families as mothers. Another doubt being
considered is that as managers of their fathers' joint family they
could be susceptible to the influence of their husbands or
Position Of Karta
The position of karta is sui generis. The relationship between him
and other members are not that of principal/agent/partners. He is
not like a manger of a commercial firm. Needless to say he is the
head of the family and acts on behalf of other members, but he is
not like a partner, as his powers are almost unlimited.
Undoubtedly, he is the master of the grand show of the joint
family and manages all its affairs and its business. His power of
management is so wide and almost sovereign that any manager of
business firm pales into insignificance. The karta stands in a
fiduciary relationship with the other members but he is not a
Ordinarily a Karta is accountable to none. Unless charges of
fraud, misrepresentation or conversion are leveled against him. He
is the master and none can question as to what he received and
what he spent. He is not bound for positive failures such as
failure to invest, to prepare accounts, to save money.
Karta may discriminate i.e. he is not bound to treat all members
impartially. He is not bound to pay income in a fixed proportion
to other members. Even if he enters such an agreement
/arrangement, he can repudiate the same with impunity.
However large powers a karta might have, he cannot be a despot. He
has blood ties with other members of the family. After all he is a
person of limited powers. He has liabilities towards members. Any
coparcener can at any time ask for partition. He obtains no reward
for his services and he discharges many onerous responsibilities
towards the family and its members. His true legal position can be
understood only when we know the ambit of his powers and
Karta’s liabilities are numerous and multifarious.
Maintenance: - In a joint Hindu family, the right of maintenance
of all the coparceners out of the joint family funds is an
inherent right and an essential quality of the coparcenery. As
Mayne puts it:
Those who would be entitled to share the bulk of
property are entitled to have all their necessary expenses paid
out of its income. Every coparcener, from the head of the family
to the junior most members, is entitled to maintenance. A Karta is
responsible to maintain all members of the family, coparceners and
others. If he improperly excludes any member from maintenance or
does not properly maintain them, he can be sued for maintenance as
well as for arrears of maintenance.
Marriage: - He is also responsible for the marriage of all
unmarried members. This responsibility is particularly emphasized
in respect of daughters. Marriage of a daughter is considered as a
sacrosanct duty under Hindu law. Marriage expenses are defrayed
out of joint family funds.
Chandra Kishore v. Nanak Chand AIR 1975 Del 175
In this case it was held that Karta is responsible for managing
the expenses of the marriage of the daughter from the joint family
estate. And in case marriage expenses are met from outside they
are to be reimbursed from the joint family funds.
Accounts at the time of Partition: - Partition means bringing
the joint status to an end. On partition, the family ceases to be
a joint family. Under the Mitakshara law, partition means two
(a) Severance of status /interest, and
(b) Actual division of property in accordance with the shares so
specified, known as partition by metes and bounds.
The former is a matter of individual decision, the desire to sever
himself and enjoy the unspecified and undefined share separately
from others while the latter is a resultant consequent of his
declaration of intention to sever but which is essentially a
Taking of accounts means an enquiry into the joint family assets.
It means preparing an inventory of all the items of the joint
The Mitakshara Karta is not liable to accounts and no coparcener
can even at the time of partition, call upon the karta to account
his past dealings with the joint family property unless charges of
fraud, misappropriation/conversion are made against him.
Ghuia Devi v. Shyamlal Mandal AIR 1974 Pat 68
Facts: - Gokul Mandal was the common ancestor of the family, he
had 2 sons: - Gobardhan and Ghoghan. After Gokul’s death Gobardhan
was the karta of the family. Shyamlal and Kisan are the sons of
Gobardhan. Shyamlal, defendant no.1 is the husband of the
plaintiff. In 1951, partition took place between two branches:
Shyamlal and Ghoghan. After partition, Shyamlal began to act as
karta of the family consisting of the members of Gobardhan’s
branch. Appellant is a pardanashin lady. Shyamlal took advantage
of her position and misappropriation of property and its income
and as a result of it a suit was filed. Plea of appellant was that
their client was entitled to a decree for accounts. Their plea was
rejected because they could adduce no evidence.
Judgment: - In the suits for partition of a Joint Hindu Family
property the manager/karta can only be made liable for revaluation
of account if there is a proof of misappropriation /fraud and
improper conversion of joint family assets and property. It was
said that in the absence of such a proof a coparcener seeking
partition is not entitled to require the manager to account for
his past dealings with the joint family property.
However, when a coparcener suing for partition is entirely
excluded from the enjoyment of property he can ask for accounts.
After the severance of status has taken place, the karta is bound
to render accounts of all expenditure and income in the same
manner as a trustee or agent is bound to render accounts. This
means that from the date of severance of status, the karta is
bound to account for all mesne profits.
Representation: - The karta represents the family. He is its
sole representative vis-a vis the government and all outsiders and
in that capacity he has to discharge many responsibilities and
liabilities on behalf of the family. He has to pay taxes and other
dues on behalf of the family and he can be sued for all his
dealings on behalf of the family with the outsiders.
Powers Of Karta
When we enumerate the powers of karta, the real importance of his
legal position comes into clear relief. His powers are vast and
limitations are few. The ambit of his powers can be considered
under two heads: - (a) power of alienation of joint family
property, (b) other powers. In the former case, his powers are
limited since a karta can alienate in exceptional cases. In the
latter case his powers are large, almost absolute.
First we will discuss the other powers.
Powers of management: - As the head of the family, karta’s
powers of management are almost absolute. He may mange the
property of the family, the family affairs, the business the way
he likes, he may mismanage also, nobody can question his
mismanagement. He is not liable for positive failures. He may
discriminate between the members of the family. But he cannot deny
maintenance /use/occupation of property to any coparcener. The
ever-hanging sword of partition is a great check on his absolute
powers. Probably, the more effective check is the affection and
the natural concern that he has for the members of the family and
the complete faith and confidence that members repose in him.
Right to income: - It is the natural consequence of the joint
family system that the whole of the income of the joint family
property, whosoever may collect them, a coparcener, agent or a
servant, must be handled over to the karta .It is for the karta to
allot funds to the members and look after their needs and
The income given to the karta is an expenditure incurred in the
interest of the family.
Jugal Kishore Baldeo Sahai v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 238
In the present case, both the members of the Hindu undivided
family, who were the only persons competent to enter into an
agreement on its behalf, considered it appropriate that the karta
should be paid salary at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for
looking after its interest in the partnership in which it had a
substantial interest because its karta was a partner therein as
its representative, and entered into an agreement to pay salary to
him for the services rendered to the family. The ratio of the
above decision is, therefore, applicable to the present case.
Accordingly, the salary paid to him has to be held to be an
expenditure incurred in the interest of the family .The
expenditure having been incurred under a valid agreement, bonafide,
and in the interest of and wholly and exclusively for the purpose
of the business of the Hindu undivided family, is allowable as a
deductible expenditure under section 37(1) of the Indian Income
Tax Act, 1922 in computing the income of the Hindu undivided
Right to representation: - The karta of a joint family
represents the family in all matters- legal, social, religious. He
acts on behalf of the family and such acts are binding on the
family. The joint family has no corporate existence; it acts in
all matters through its karta. The karta can enter into any
transaction on behalf of the family and that would be binding on
the joint family.
Dr. Gopal v. Trimbak AIR 1953 Nag 195
In this case, it was held that a manager/karta can contract debts
for carrying on a family business/ thereby render the whole family
property including the shares of the other family members liable
for the debt.
Merely because one of the members of the joint family also joins
him, it does not alter his position as a karta.
Power of Compromise: - The karta has power to compromise all
disputes relating to family property or their management. He can
also compromise family debts and other transactions. However, if
his act of compromise is not bonafide, it can be challenged in a
partition. He can also compromise a suit pending in the court and
will be binding on all the members, though a minor coparcener may
take advantage of O.32, Rule 7 C.P.C., which lays down that in
case one of the parties to the suit is a minor the compromise must
be approved by the court.
Power to refer a dispute to arbitration: - The karta
has power to refer any dispute to arbitration and the award of the
arbitrators will be binding on the joint family if valid in other
Karta’s power to contract debts: - The karta has an implied
authority to contract debts and pledge the credit of the family
for ordinary purpose of family business. Such debts incurred in
the ordinary course of business are binding on the entire family.
The karta of a non-business joint family also has the power to
contract debts for family purposes. When a creditor seeks to make
the entire joint family liable for such debts, it is necessary for
him to prove that the loan was taken for family purposes, or in
the ordinary course of business or that he made proper and bona
fide enquiries as to the existence of need. The expression family
purpose has almost the same meaning as legal necessity, benefit of
estate, or performance of indispensable and pious duties.
Loan on Promissory note:
- When the karta of a joint family
takes a loan or executes a promissory note for family purposes or
for family business, the other members of the family may be sued
on the note itself even if they are not parties to the note. Their
liability is limited to the share in the joint family property,
though the karta is personally liable on the note.
Power to enter into contracts: - The karta has the power to
enter into contracts and such contracts are binding on the family.
It is also now settled that a contract, otherwise specifically
enforceable, is also specifically enforceable against the family.
Power of alienation
Although no individual coparcener, including the karta has any
power to dispose of the joint family property without the consent
of all others, the Dharma Shastra recognizes it. That in certain
circumstances any member has the power to alienate the joint
family property. The Mitakshara is explicit on the matter.
According to Vijnaneshwara: -
....even one person who is capable may conclude a gift,
hypothecation or sale of immovable property, if a calamity (apatkale)
affecting the whole family requires it, or the support of the
family (kutumbarthe) render it necessary, or indispensable duties
(dharmamarthe), such as obsequies of the father or the like, made
The formulation of Vijnaneshwara has undergone modification in two
The power cannot be exercised by any member except the karta.
The joint family property can only be alienated for three
(a) Apatkale (Legal Necessity)
(b) Kutumbarthe (Benefit of Estate)
(c) Dharmamarthe (Religious obligations)
- It cannot be defined precisely. The cases of legal necessity can
be so numerous and varied that it is impossible to reduce them
into water –tight compartments. Loosely speaking it includes all
those things, which are deemed necessary for the members of the
family. What need to be shown is that the property was alienated
for the satisfaction of a need. The term is to be interpreted with
due regard to the modern life. Where the necessity is partial,
i.e. where the money required to meet the necessity is less than
the amount raised by the alienation, then also it is justified for
Dev Kishan v. Ram Kishan AIR 2002 Raj 370
Facts:- Ram Kishan , the plaintiff filed a suit against
appellants, defendants. Plaintiffs and defendants are members of a
Joint Hindu Family. Defendant no.2 is the karta, who is under the
influence of defendant no.1 has sold and mortgaged the property
for illegal and immoral purposes as it was for the marriage of
minor daughters Vimla and Pushpa. The defendants contention was
that he took the loan for legal necessity.
Judgment: - The debt was used for an unlawful purpose. Since it
was in contravention of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929,
therefore it cannot be called as lawful alienation.
Benefit of Estate:
- Broadly speaking, benefit of estate means anything, which is
done for the benefit of the joint family property. There are two
views as to it. One view is that only construction, which is of
defensive character, can be a benefit of estate. This view seems
to be no longer valid. The other view is that anything done which
is of positive benefit, will amount to benefit of estate. The test
is that anything which a prudent person can do in respect of his
- This term implies performance of those acts, which are
religious, pious, or charitable.
gave one instance of Dharmamarthe, viz., obsequies of the father
and added “or the like”. It is clear that this expression includes
all other indispensable duties such as sradha, upananyana, and
performance of other necessary sanskars. For the discharge of
indispensable duties the karta may even alienate the entire
A karta can even alienate a portion of the family property for
charitable/pious purposes. However, in this case, the powers of
the karta are limited i.e. he can alienate a small portion of the
joint family property, whether movable/immovable.
Alienation Is Voidable
It may be taken as a well-settled law, that alienation made by
karta without legal necessity / benefit of estate/ discharge of
indispensable duties is not void but merely voidable at the
instance of any coparcener.
In CIT v Gangadhar Sikaria Family Trust (1983) 142 ITR 677, the
Gauhati High Court was called upon to decide whether the
Income-tax Officer can challenge the validity of an alienation by
the karta of a Hindu undivided family. The High Court held that
under the Hindu Law, the karta of a Hindu undivided family has an
unfettered right to alienate the joint family property for legal
necessity and for the benefit of the estate or the family. It was
further held that even if a transfer by the karta were not for
legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate, but if it is
done with the consent of the coparceners, it would be only
voidable and not void ab-initio.
It is clear that alienation by the karta or manager of a joint
family is voidable, but not void. Hence, a third party cannot
repudiate it, except in cases where there is a suggestion that it
was in fraud on creditors.
It is now settled that the karta can alienate the joint family
property with the consent of the coparceners even if none of the
above exceptional cases exist. Alienation without the consent of
the coparcener, which is not for legal necessity, is void.
It is well established that there is no presumption under Hindu
Law that a business standing in the name of any member of the
joint family is a joint family business even if that member is the
manager of the joint family. Unless it could be shown that the
business in the hands of the coparcener grew up with the
assistance of the joint family property or joint family funds or
that the earnings of the business were blender with the joint
family estate, the business remains free and separate.
Law as enumerated under Article 222 of Mulla Hindu Law is well
settled that a Hindu, even if be joint, may possess separate
property. Such property belongs exclusively to him. No other
member of the coparcenary, not even his male issue, acquires any
interest in it by birth, and on his death intestate, it passes by
succession to his heirs, and not by survivorship to the surviving
P.S. Sairam v. P.S. Ramarao Pisey AIR 2004 SC 1619
Facts: - P. Eswar Rao had 3 marriages. From his second marriage he
had 2 sons: - P. Sadashiv Rao (defendant no.1 he is the karta of
the family) and P.E. Panduranga Rao. Sadashiv Rao had 2 wives.
Godavari Bai was his first wife. She had 2 sons one of them is the
plaintiff, P.S. Ramarao Pissey. Plaintiffs case is that defendant
no.1 started a business from the income and property of joint
family in the name of M/s Pissey and sons. The contention of the
defendants is that the property was his self-acquisition, which he
acquired by raising loans from the market.
Judgment: - It was held that it was defendant no.1’s separate
The karta’s powers and liabilities and the karta’s power of
alienation of property under the Dayabhaga school are same as that
of the Mitakshara karta. The main difference between the two
schools is that in case of Dayabhaga the karta must render full
accounts at all times, whenever required to do so by the
coparcener, while in case of Mitakshara the karta is required to
render accounts only at the time of partition or unless there are
charges against him for fraud/misappropriation.
The reasoning, which was earlier given by the courts including the
apex court of the country that woman, cannot become a karta
because a karta has to necessarily be a coparcener. But now, with
the amendment of 2005, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
gives equal rights to daughters in the Hindu Mitakshara
coparcenary property as the sons have. Even now the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 does not accept a woman as karta in normal
circumstances. She can be a karta only in 2 certain special
circumstances: - in the absence of male members, and in case there
are minor male members in the family, which is prescribed by the
ancient Hindu law, the dharmashatras.
It should be understood that amendments are only the first step.
The law can only be a path breaker; it cannot ensure that justice
is done. For that there must be a positive change in social mores.
The law would always be a step behind. Women have to become aware
that the law does not discriminate against them in property
matters and that they cannot be shortchanged any more. In many
cases, justice is denied simply because of lack of awareness.
Here, hopefully, the right to Information Act would kick in and
facilitate greater access for women to know about their rights. In
fact, they should be empowered and enabled to demand their rights,
wherever they are sought to be denied.
The government should take steps to uplift the position of woman
in other personal laws also.
It must be understood that equality for women is not just a matter
of equity for the so-called weaker sex, but a measure of the
modernity of Indian society and the pragmatic nature of our
Further analyzing the position of karta, it can be said that he
has less liabilities and more powers. Though at the same time it
cannot be said that he holds the position of a despot. When it
comes to determination of the position of karta it can be said
that he holds a unique position. In totality it can be said that
all family members are duty bound to accept what karta says
until/unless it is detrimental to them.
Darret J., Duncan M. "Essays
in Classical and Modern Hindu Law"
Vol.2, Universal Book Traders Page no. 114.
Dr. Diwan Paras
16th Edition, Allahabad Law Agency, Page no. 290-294.