CASE ANALYSIS- SUJATA SHARMA V. MANU GUPTA

Deciphering the Contours of Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta

1. Introduction:
   Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta was the first case in which the Hon’ble Delhi High Court granted the 1
   right to become a Karta to the eldest female Coparcener of the Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafter
   referred to as “HUF”). Such an approach by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has generated a positive
   impact by removing gender discrimination yet the same approach was not taken by satisfactory
   means. The positive and negative component of the judgement is discussed at the length in the
   present case comment.
2. Facts & Procedural History:
   In the present case, the controversies were around the HUF named D.R.Gupta & Sons-HUF and Mr
   D R Gupta was a Karta of this HUF. The said HUF has some movable properties and shares and a
   long term lease on a bungalow situated in Delhi. Mr D R Gupta died on October 1, 1971, leaving
   behind 5 sons and their families. Mr Kishan Mohan Gupta, the eldest son was then named Karta. Mr
   Kishan Mohan Gupta’s eldest daughter is the plaintiff. All 5 sons died over time, and the 1st
   defendant, who was the son of one of Mr Kishan Mohan Gupta’s younger brothers, proclaimed
   himself as a Karta of the HUF by virtue of being the eldest living male member of the said HUF. After
   the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “2005 Amendment”), the
   dispute arose between the plaintiff and defendant relating to who should be the Karta of the HUF. The
   position of the law relating to whether the female Coparcener can become a Karta of the HUF was not
   clear and the dispute came before the Hon’ble Delhi Court.
3. Issues:
   This case involved numerous question of facts and mixed questions of facts and law. However, a
   significant issue of law was as follows:
   Whether, by virtue of the introduction of the 2005 Amendment, daughter being the senior-most
   member of HUF can become a Karta?
4. Arguments:
   4.1 Arguments from the side of Plaintiffs-
   The learned counsel for the plaintiff heavily based her initial argument on the effect of the 2005
   Amendment. By drawing attention to the said effect, she categorically argued that the effect of the
   2005 Amendment is such that now the daughter is legally recognised as a Coparcener and shall be
   having the same right in the coparcenary property that of a son . In addition to this, she also 2
   established that there is an absence of controversy relating to the plaintiff being the eldest member of
   the HUF. Thereafter, with an aim to establish the required qualification to become a Karta of the HUF

Conclusion:
The 2005 Amendment created a lot of confusion and by going through the fundamental change it also
generated the various dispute between the family members. Giving the extended effect to the 2005
Amendment, the Court in the case of Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta aimed at establishing gender
equality in the Hindu societal set-up. But by the given reflection of the judgement, it is axiomatically
established that the approach taken by the Court is not in consonance with the legal principles and it
suffered from incompleteness. Hence, the author is of the view that: