J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J “Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time”

– Ruth Bader Ginsburg

1. Men and women historically were born equal. However, over a period of time, with the advancement of civilization and hierarchical division of society, women have been pigeonholed according to gender roles which progressed into an act of prelation that has relegated them to a secondary position in society. Consequently, the once egalitarian society became a breeding ground for chauvinism and discrimination in the form of Sati, Child Marriage, Sexual Harassment, Domestic Violence, Dowry Harassment and such like disparages. Legislature has time and again, brought forth reforms to overcome this bigotry and free women from the shackles of such specious fetters devised by mankind thereby enabling her to achieve her full potential and march shoulder to shoulder with men.

2. Despite robust legislations, real change has been slow due to the pervasive ambivalence and deeply ingrained stereotypes. This is where Courts assume significance for facilitation of implementation of the laws resulting in actualisation for the stakeholders. This has been true, especially in the laws conferring rights to women. It is known that though the right of women to own property came to be recognized under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the grim reality is that women were compelled, by their circumstances and family members, to forgo their rights in property. The tenacious role of Courts in upholding such rights of women has propelled them to agitate their long overdue entitlements, making Courts the game changer.

3. Similarly, the Amendment of 2005 to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which has conferred coparcenary rights to the women, equivalent to that of men, is a quintessence of another reform in law relating to women empowerment. However, the unwavering certitude in marginalisation of women, so deeply entrenched in Society, is perceived to be imperilled by the prospect of a woman taking the position of Karta in an HUF, a role that was traditionally assumed by men.

4. This disinclination in accepting a woman as a Karta, despite having been conferred equal rights equal coparcenary rights as men, has emerged in the present case, leaving the ball in our Court.

5. The present Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Manu Gupta (the defendant No.1 in the main Suit), against the Judgement dated 22.12.2015 whereby the Suit for Declaration for declaring the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) as the Karta of Late Shri D.R. Gupta and Sons, HUF, has been allowed.

6. The appellant and the respondents, being Hindus and governed by the Mitakshara Law, are the descendants of Late Shri D.R. Gupta, son of Late Shri Sunder Das Gupta, who expired on 01.10.1971. Admittedly, Late Shri D.R. Gupta constituted a Hindu Joint Family (HUF) known as D.R Gupta and Sons (HUF) since 05.01.1963 comprising of himself and his five sons. The members of the HUF are reflected in the chart below: -

7. Late Shri D.R. Gupta, voluntarily put his immoveable property commonly known as No. 4, University Road, Delhi, and shares in Motor and General Finance Ltd., besides other moveable and immoveable properties in the common hotch-potch and executed an Affidavit dated 05.01.1963 declaring that all properties shall belong to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of which he shall be the “Karta” with right of survivorship and all other incidents of undivided coparcenary on his wife and his five sons namely Late Shri K.M. Gupta, Late Shri M.H. Gupta, Late Shri R.N. Gupta, Late Shri B.N. Gupta and Late Shri J.N. Gupta as members. “D.R. Gupta & Sons HUF”, thus came to own the following immovable and moveable properties which are the subject matter of the present Suit. The details of immoveable and moveable properties are as under: -

(a) Immoveable Property ––

(i) No. 4, University Road, Delhi. This property was purchased vide a Registered Sale Deed dated 15.07.1943 by Late Shri D.R. Gupta from