Latest News
Back
Document:
Judgement Analysis: Shreya Vidyarthi V. Ashok Vidyarthi AIR 2016 SC 139
Bench: Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice N. V. Ramana
Facts: Hari Shankar Vidyarthi in 1937, married Savitri Vidyarthi, the mother of the parties in the present matter. Hari Shankar Vidyarthi then in 1942 married to Rama Vidyarthi. Out of the second wedlock, Srilekha Vidyarthi and Madhulekha Vidyarthi (defendants 1 and 2 in Suit No. 630 of 1978) were born. The appellant-eighth defendant Shreya Vidyarthi is the adopted daughter of Srilekha Vidyarthi (since deceased). After the death of Hari Shankar Vidyarthi, the second wife who was taking care of the whole family which was living jointly was also receiving allowances and monthly maintenance from Trusts and Insurance Policy with the second wife being the nominee in the same. Then Rama Vidyarthi bought some property, out of those funds, which was in question in the present matter.
Issues:
- Whether the property bought by Rama Vidyarthi would be considered as being bought from the joint family funds or out of her own personal funds.
- Whether a female could be considered as Karta of Hindu Undivided Family.
Arguments of the petitioner: The suit which originated when Rama Vidyarthi filed an eviction suit against Savitri Vidyarthi which was rejected by the trial court and later in the high court which was ruled against the petitioners in the current case was an ex-parte proceeding and therefore the findings of the same couldn’t be relied on.
Judgement: The court in the ruling set aside the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner as the petitioner was present in numerous proceedings and filed various affidavits. The court discussed in detail the facts where it was evident that Rama Vidyarthi bought the property out of the combined use of the maintenance sum and the policy money. Court firstly considered the valid claim of the policy money for which it referred to the interpretation of nominee under Life Insurance Company which was discussed in the case of Smt. Sarbati Devi & Anr. vs. Smt. Usha Devi 1984 (1) SCC 424. In the case which dealt with a similar issue of interest over the insurance money between the nominee and the heirs, wherein it was held that nomination in case of insurance only indicates the authorised hands which are to receive the amount, after the payment of which the insurer gets validly discharged of its liability under the said policy and it doesn’t talk about the rightful claimant of the money. The amount further can be claimed by the heirs of the assured as applicable in the given case in accordance with the law of succession or any other law in force.
The court also took note of the fact that the family was living together peacefully at and after the demise of Hari Shankar Vidyarthi and after the purchase of property for around 7 years as evidence of the existence of a joint family. Further, the court also sustained the finding of the joint family with the dominance of Rama Vidyarthi over the fact of her being elderly and others being relatively much younger than her.
Over the issue of Rama Vidyarthi being the Karta of the HUF, the court in the first instance ruled out any merit in the right of woman as a coparcener after the death of the husband. Thereby the court distinguished between the two terms Karta and Manager where latter must be understood as denoting a role different from that of the former and therefore the case of a woman being the Karta is not possible in this case.
Although the court also took a view where the husband has died and the eldest coparcener i.e. the son is still minor. Such situation where the condition of the family being the Hindu Undivided Family is not in dispute then for the period between the coparcener being minor to being major, the eldest female may become the manager of the family for that time period while referring to the view of the court in Controller of Estate Duty, Madras v Alladi Kuppuswamy 1977 (3) SCC 385.
The court in no situation gave the widow or the eldest female the title of being the Karta but acknowledged her title of being the manager of the family for that period of time of her being the guardian of the sole minor male coparcener. Applying the same in the current matter with given facts and circumstances, the court endowed with Rama Vidyarthi, the title of manager of the family for the time when they were living as HUF since the other wife played a submissive role while Rama played a dominant and active role in managing the family. Therefore, the court found it appropriate to give an appropriate partition between all the members as applicable as per the succession laws.
Conclusion: The bench, in this case, didn’t clearly recognise the title of widow female as Karta but gave her a distinct title of being the manager till the time she acts as a guardian of a minor male coparcener.
Document:
