SHREYA VIDYARTHI versus ASHOK VIDYARTHI & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 14 S.C.R. 1190 · Decided: 16-12-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2015] 14 S.C.R. 1190 
SHREYA VIDYARTHI 
v. 
ASHOK VIDYARTHI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3162-3163 of 2010) 
DECEMBER 16, 2015 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA; JJ.) 
Hindu law - Hindu undivided family - Hindu widow -
Role assigned - Held: Hindu Widow is not a coparcener in 
C the HUF of her husband and, thus, cannot act as Karta of the 
HUF after the death of her husband - Hindu Widow can act 
as the Manager of the HUF in her capacity as the guardian 
of the sole surviving minor male coparcener -
Two 
expressions Karta and Manager are not synonymous -
D Expression 'Manager' may be understood as denoting a role 
distinct from that of the Karta - In a case where male adult 
coparcener has died and there is no male coparcener 
. surviving or where the sole male coparcener is a minor, the 
HUF does not come to an end - Mother of the male 
E coparcener can act as the legal guardian of the minor and 
also look after his role as the Karla in her capacity as his 
(minor's) legal guardian - On facts, respondent was the only 
surviving male coparcener after the death of his father and 
was a minor - Materials on record indicate that the natural 
F mother of minor played a submissive role.in the affairs of the 
joint family and the step mother played an active and 
dominant role in managing the said affairs, in her capacity 
as the step mother bf the respondent and the said role was 
not opposed by the natural mother - Step mother had 
G purchased the suit property out of the joint family funds 
namely insurance money, thus, the suit property was a joint 
family property, the respondent was entitled to seek partition 
thereof and on that basis the apportionment of shares in the 
H 
suit property between the respondent and the eighth 
1190 
SHREYA VIDYARTHI v. ASH OK VIDYARTHI & ORS. 
1191 
defendant-respondent's step sister's adopted daughter rightly A 
made by the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The appellant came to be impleaded in 
the suit following the death of defendant No. 2 and B 
thereafter on the death of defendant No. 1. From the facts 
recorded by the High Court it is clear and evident that 
the appellant had participated in the proceeding before 
the High Court at various stages through counsels. In 
its order the High Court observed that full opportunity c 
of hearing on merits was afforded to the appellant. There 
can hardly be any justification to remand the matter to 
the High Court for a fresh consideration by setting aside 
the impugned order. [Para 14) [1200-C-D, F] 
1.2 The_ affidavit of step mother in suit filed by D 
natural mother discloses that she was looking after the 
family as the Manager taking care of the respondent No.1-
step son; that she had received the insurance money 
following the death of her husband and the same was 
used for the purchase of the suit property. The virtual E 
admission by the predecessor-in-interest of the 
appellant of the use of the insurance money to acquire 
the suit property is significant. The insurance amounts 
constitute the entitlement of all the legal heirs of the 
deceased though the same may have been received by F 
step mother 1s the nominee of her husband. [Para 15] 
[1200-H; 1201-A·B, DJ 
1.3 The fact that the family was peacefully living 
together at the time of the demise of the father; the 
continuance of such common residence for almost 7 G 
years after purchase of the suit property in the year 1961; 
that there was peace and tranquility in the whole family 
were rightly taken note of by the High Court as evidence 
H 
1192 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A of existence of a joint family. The execution of sale deed 
in the name of step mother and the absence of any 
mention thereof 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 respondent-21 
B years which may have inhibited any objection to the 
dominant position of step mother in the joint family, a 
fact also evident from the other materials on record. The 
conclusion reached by the High Court on the issue of 
existence of a joint family is correct. [Para 16] [1202-E-
C G; 1203-A] 
1.4 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 
D to be not synonymous and the expression 'Manager' 
may be understood as denoting a r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.