Nominee-Right of Nominee–Existence of Joint Family-Hindu widow is not coparcener in HUF of her husband: Hindu law Prior to amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005.

In the year 1937, one Hari Shankar Vidyarthi married Savitri Vidyarthi, the mother of the Respondent – Plaintiff. Subsequently, in the year 1942, Hari Shankar Vidyarthi was married for the second time to one Rama Vidyarthi. Out of the aforesaid second wedlock, two daughters, namely, Srilekha Vidyarthi and Madhulekha Vidyarthi (Defendants 1 and 2) were born.

The dispute in the present case revolves around the question whether the suit property, purchased by sale deed dated 27.9.1961 by Rama Vidyarthi was acquired from the joint family funds or out of her own personal funds.

The Hon. Court held that though the claim of absolute ownership of the suit property had been made by Rama Vidyarthi in the affidavit, she had also stated that she received the insurance money following the death of Hari Shankar Vidyarthi and the same was used for the purchase of the suit property along with other funds. The claim of absolute ownership is belied by the true legal position with regard to the claims/entitlement of the other legal heirs to the insurance amount. Such amounts constitute the entitlement of all the legal heirs of the deceased though the same may have been received by Rama Vidyarthi as the nominee of her husband. The above would seem to follow from the view expressed by this Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi and Anr. vs. Smt. Usha Devi : 1984 (1) SCC 424.

The facts that the family was peacefully living together at the time of the demise of Hari Shankar Vidyarthi; the continuance of such common residence for almost 7 years after purchase of the suit property in the year 1961; that there was no discord between the parties and there was peace and tranquility in the whole family were also rightly taken note of by the High Court as evidence of existence of a joint family. The execution of sale deed dated 27.9.1961 in the name of Rama Vidyarthi and the absence of any mention that she was acting on behalf of the joint family has also been rightly construed by the High Court with reference to the young age of the Plaintiff -Respondent (21 years) which may have inhibited any objection to the dominant position of Rama Vidyarthi in the joint family, a fact also evident from the other materials on record. The Court, therefore, held that there can be no justification to cause any interference with the conclusion reached by the High Court on the issue of existence of a joint family.

Issue also arose as to how could Rama Vidyarthi act as the Karta of the HUF in view of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills Ltd. : AIR 1966 SC 24 holding that a Hindu widow cannot act as the Karta of a HUF which role the law had assigned only to males who alone could be coparceners (prior to the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act in 2005).

While there can be no doubt that a Hindu widow is not a coparcener in the HUF of her husband and, therefore, cannot act as Karta of the HUF after the death of her husband, the two expressions i.e. Karta and Manager may be understood to be not synonymous and the expression “Manager” may be understood as denoting a role distinct from that of the Karta. Hypothetically, we may take the case of HUF where the male adult coparcener has died and there is no male coparcener surviving or as in the facts of the present case, where the sole male coparcener (Respondent – Plaintiff Ashok Vidyarthi) was a minor. In such a situation obviously the HUF does not come to an end. The mother of the male coparcener can act as the legal guardian of the minor and also look after his role as the Karta in her capacity as his (minor’s) legal guardian. Such a situation has been found, and rightly, to be consistent with the law by the Calcutta High Court in Sushila Devi Rampuria vs. Income Tax Officer and Anr.: AIR 1959 Cal 697 rendered in the context of the provisions of the Income Tax Act while determining the liability of such a HUF to assessment under that Act. Coincidently the aforesaid decision of the Calcutta High Court was noticed in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills Ltd.