SHREYA VIDYARTHI versus ASHOK VIDYARTHI & ORS.
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 1190, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
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 role distinct from that 
of the Karta. Hypothetically, the case of HUF may be taken 
where the male adult coparcener has died and there is 
no male coparcener surviving or as in the facts of the 
E instant case, where the sole male coparcener 
(respondent) is 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 
F capacity as his (minor's) legal guardian. [Para 18] [1203-
G-H; 1204-A·B] 
1.5 In the instant case, RV was the
step mother of 
the respondent who at the time of the death of his father 
G was a minor. The respondent was the only surviving 
male coparcener after the death of his father. The 
materials on record indicate that the natural mother of 
respondent, had played a submissive role in the affairs 
of the joint family and the step mother had played an 
H active and dominant role in managing the said affairs.
SHREYA VIDYARTHI v. ASH OK VIDYARTHI & ORS. 
1193 
The said role of step mother was not opposed by the A 
natural mother. Therefore, the same can very well be 
understood to be in her capacity as the step mother of 
the respondent and, therefore, consistent with the legal 
position which recognizes a Hindu Widow acting as the 
Manager of the HUF in her c.apacity as the guardian of B 
the sole surviving minor male coparcener. Such a role 
necessarily has to be distinguished from that of a Karta 
which position the Hindu widow cannot assume by 
virtue of her dis-entitlement to be a coparcener in the 
HUF of her husband. Regrettably the position remain C 
unaltered even after the amendment of the Hindu 
Succession Act in 2005. [Para 20] [1204-F-H; 1205-A-C] 
1.6 The apportionment of shares of the parties in 
the suit property made by the High Court, does not 
disclose any illegality or infirmity so as to justify any D 
correction. Having held and rightly that the suit property 
was a joint family property, the respondent was found 
entitled to seek partition thereof and on that basis the 
apportionment of shares in the suit property between 
the respondent and the contesting eighth defendant was E 
rightly made by the High Court in accordance with the 
reliefs sought in the suit. [Para 23] [1205-G-H; 1206-A] 
Smt. Sarbati Devi & Anr. v. Smt. Usha Devi 1984 
(1) SCC 424: 1984 (1) SCR 992; Commissioner 
of Income Tax v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills Ltd. 
AIR 1966 SC 24 : 1965 SCR
488; Controller of 
Estate Duty, Madras v. Alladi Kuppuswamy 1977 
(3) SCC 385 : 1977 (3) SCR 721; Sushi/a Devi 
Rampuria v. Income Tax Officer and Anr. AIR 1959 
Cal 697 - referred to. 
1984 (1) SCR 992 
1965 SCR 488 
Cas.e Law Reference 
referred to 
referred to 
Para 15 
Para 17 
F 
G 
H
1194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
1977 (3) SCR 721 
referred to 
Para 17 
AIR 1959 Cal 697 
referred to 
Para 18 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
3162-3163 of 2010 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2009 and 
24.11.2009 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in 
FirstAppeal No. 693of1987 and Civil Misc. Recall Application 
No. 262907 of 2009 in FA No. 693 of 1987 
C 
Z. M. Naiyer, Sr. Adv., Salish Vig, Vikas Sachdeva, 
Ashutosh Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. 
D 
S. B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv., Vijaiendra Nigam, Y.K.S. 
Chauhan, Ms. Kumud Lala Das, V. Sushant Gupta, Dr. Kailash 
Chand,Advs. forthe Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. The appellant before us is the 
8'h Defendant in Suit No. 630of1978 which was instituted by 
the first-respondent herein as the plaintiff. The said suit filed 
E for permanent injunction and in the alternative for a decree of 
partition and separation of shares by metes and bounds was 
dismissed by the learned Trial Court. In appeal, the High Court 
reversed the order of the Trial Court and decreed the suit of 
the respondent-plaintiff with a further declaration that he is 
F entitled to 3/41h share in the suit property, namely, House No. 
7189, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur whereas the appellant (defendant 
No. 8 in the suit) is entitled to the remaining 1/41h share in the 
said property. Aggrieved, these appeals have been filed. 
2. The relevant facts which will have to
be noticed may 
G be enumerated hereinunder. 
H 
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
SHREYA VIDYARTHI v. ASH OK VIDYARTHI & ORS. 
1195 
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
married for the second time to one Rama Vidyarthi. Out of the A 
aforesaid si'lcond wedlock, two daughters, namely, 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) and also the legatee/ beneficiary B 
of a Will left by Madhulekha Vidyarthi. 
3. The dispute in the present case revolves around the 
question whether the suit property, as described above, was 
purchasec;I by sale deed dated 27.9.1961 by Rama Vidyarthi 
from the joint family funds or out of her own personal funds. C 
The suit property had been involved in several previous 
litigations between the parties, details of which may now require 
a close look. 
4. In the year 1968 Suit No. 147/1968 was instituted by 0 
Savitri Vidyarthi (mother of the respondent-plaintiff) contending 
that the suit property being purchased from the joint family funds 
a decree should be passed against the daughters of Rama 
Vidyarthi from interfering with her possession. This suit was 
dismissed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 
E 
account of failure to pay the requisite court fee. In the said suit 
the respondent-plaintiff had filed an affidavit dated 24.2.1968 
stating that he had willfully relinquished all his rights and 
interests, if any, in the suit property. The strong reliance
placed 
on the said affidavit on behalf of the appellant in the course of F 
the arguments advanced on her behalf needs to be dispelled 
by the fact that an actual reading of the said affidavit discloses 
that such renunciation was only in respect of the share of Rama 
Devi in the suit property and not on the entirety thereof. 
Consistent with the above position is the suit filed by the G 
respondent-plaintiff i.e. Suit No. 21/70/1976 seeking partition 
of the joint family properties. The said suit was again dismissed 
under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC for failure to 
pay the requisite court fee. It also appears that Rama Vidyarthi 
H
1196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14S.C.R. 
A 
the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant had filed 
Suit No. 37 /1969 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for 
recovery of possession of two rooms of the suit property which, 
according to her, had been forcibly occupied by the present 
respondent-plaintiff. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit 
B i.e. 37/1969 Rama Vidyarttii had passed away. The aforesaid 
suit was decreed in favour of the legal heirs of the plaintiff-
Rama Vidyarthi namely, Srilekha and Madhulekha Vidyarthi 
on 4.2.1976. 
· 
5. It is in the aforesaid fact situation that the suit out of 
C which the present appeals have arisen i.e. Suit No. 630 of 
1978 was filed by the present respondent-plaintiff impleading 
Srilekha Vidyarthi (mother of the appellant) and Madhulekha 
Vidyarthi (testator of the Will in favour of the appellant) as 
defendants 1 and 2 and seeking the reliefs earlier noticed. 
D 
6. The specific case pleaded by the plaintiff in the suit 
was that the plaintiff's father, Hari Shankar Vidyarthi, died on 
14.3.1955 leaving behind his two widows i.e. Savitri Vidyarthi 
(first wife) and Rama Vidyarthi (second wife). According to 
E the plaintiff, the second wife i.e. Rama Vidyarthi had managed 
the day to day affairs of the entire family which was living jointly. 
The plaintiff had further pleaded that Rama Vidyarthi was the 
nominee of an insurance policy taken out by Hari Shankar 
Vidyarthi during his life time and that
she was also receiving a 
F 
monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs. 500/- on behalf of the 
family from the "Pratap Press Trust, Kanpur" of which Hari 
ShankarVidyarthi was the managing trustee. In the suit filed, 
it was further pleaded that Rama Vidyarthi received a sum of 
Rs. 33,000/- out of the insurance policy and also a sum of Rs. 
G 15,000/- from Pratap Press Trust, Kanpur as advance 
maintenance allowance. It was claimed that the said amounts 
were utilized to purchase the suit property on 27.9.1961. It was, 
therefore, contended that the suit property is joint family 
property having been purchased out of joint family funds. The 
H
SHREYA VIDYARTHI v. ASH OK VIDYARTHI & ORS. 
1197 
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
plaintiff had further stated that all members of the family A 
including the first wife, the first respondent and his two step 
sisters i.e. Srilekha and Madhulekha Vidyarthi had lived 
together in the suit property. As the relationship between th_e 
parties had deteriorated/changed subsequently and the 
plaintiff-respondent and his mother (Savitri Vidyarthi) were not · B 
permitted to enter the suit property and as a suit for eviction 
was filed against the first respondent (37 of 1969) by Rama 
Vidyarthi the instant suit for permanent injunction and partition 
was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff. 
7. The plaintiff's suit was resisted by both Srilekha and 
C 
Madhulekha, primarily, on the ground that the suit property was 
purchased by their mother Rama Vidyarthi from her own funds 
and not from any joint family funds. In fact, the two sisters, who 
were arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, had specifically 
denied the existence of any joint family or the availability of D 
any joint family funds. 
8. The Trial Court dismissed the suit by order dated 
19.8.1997 citing several reasons for the view taken including 
the fact that respondent-plaintiff was an attesting witness to 
E 
the sale deed dated 27.9.1961 by which the suit property was 
purchased in the name of Rama Vidyarthi; there was no 
mention i11 the sale deed that Rama Vidyarthi was representing 
the joint family or that she had
purchased the suit property on 
behalf of any other person. The learned Trial Court further held 
F 
that in the year 1955 when Hari Shankar Vidyarthi had died 
there was no joint family in existence and in fact no claim of 
any joint family property was raised unti_I the suit property was 
purchased in the year 1960-61. The Trial Col!rt was also of 
the view that if the other members of the family had any right to G 
the insurance money such a claim should have been lodged 
by way of a separate suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the 
suit, the respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal before the High 
Court. 
H
1198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
9. Certain facts and events which had occurred during 
the pendency of the appeal before the High Court will require 
a specific notice as the same form the basis of one limb of the 
case projected by the appellant before us in the present appeal, 
namely, that the order of the High Court is an ex-parte order 
B passed without appointing a legal guardian for the appellant 
for which reason the said order is required to be set aside 
and the matter remanded for a de nova consideration by the 
High Court. 
10. The first significant fact that has to be noticed in this 
C regard is the death of Madhulekha Vidyarthi during the 
pendency of the appeal and the impleadment of the appellant 
as the 8th respondent therein by order dated 31.08.2007. This 
was on the basis that the appellant is the sole legal heir of the 
deceased Madhulekha. The said order, however, was curiously 
D recalled by the High Court by another order dated 10.10.2007. 
The next significant fact which would require notice is that upon 
the death of her mother Srilekha Vidyarthi, the appellant-
defendant herself filed an application for pursuing the appeal 
in which an order was passed on 16/18.05.2009 to the effect 
E that the appellant is already represented in the proceedings 
through her counsel (in view of the earlier order impleading 
the appellant as legal heir of Madhulekha). However, by the 
said order the learned counsel was given liberty to obtain a
fresh vakalatnama from the appellant which, however, was not 
F 
so done. In the aforesaid fact situation, the High Court 
proceeded to consider the appeal on merits and passed the 
impugned judgment on the basis of consideration of the 
arguments advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of 
the appellant at the earlier stage, namely, one Shri A.K. 
G Srivastava and also on the basis of the written arguments 
submitted on behalf of the deceased Srilekha Vidyarthi. It is 
in these circumstances that the appellant has now, inter alia, 
contended that the order passed by the High Court is without 
appointing any guardian on her behalf and contrary to the 
H
SHREYA VIDYARTHI v. ASHOK VIDYARTHI & ORS. 
1199 
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.) 
provisions of Order XXXll Rules 3, 10 and 11 of the CPC. 
A 
11. Insofar as the merits of the appeal are concerned, 
the High Court took the view that on the facts before it, details 
of which will be noticed in due course, there was a joint family 
in existence in which the second wife Rama Vidyarthi had 
B 
played a predominant role and that the suit property was 
purchased out of the joint family funds namely the insurance 
money and the advance received from the Pratap Press Trust, 
Kanpur. Insofar as the devolution of shares is concerned, the 
High Court took the view that following the death of Hari c 
Shankar Vidyarthi, as the sole surviving male heir, the 
respondent-plaintiff became entitled to 50% of the suit property 
..... 
and the remaining 50% was to be divided between the two 
wives of Hari ShankarVidyarthi in equal proportion. Srilekha 
and Madhulekha Vidyarthi, i.e. defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, 
D 
as daughters of the second wife, would be entitled to share of 
Rama Vidyarthi, namely, 25% of the suit property. On their 
death, the appellant would be entitled to the said 25% share 
whereas the remaining 25% share (belonging to the first wife) 
being the subject matter of a Will in favour of her minor grand-
E 
children (sons of the respondent-plaintiff), ~he respondent-
plaintiff would also get the aforesaid 25% share of the suit 
property on behalf of the minors. Accordingly, the suit
was 
decreed and the order of dismissal of the suit was reversed. 
12. The aforesaid order of the High Court dated F 
12.08.2009 was attempted to be recalled by the appellant-81h 
defendant by filing an application to the said effect which was 
also dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 
24.11.2009. Challenging both the abovesaid orders of the 
High Court, the present appeals have been filed. 
G 
13. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, we 
find that two issues in the main arise for determination in these 
appeals. The first is whether the High Court was correct in 
passing the order dated 24.11.2009 on the recall application 
H
1200 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
filed by the appellant and whether, if the appellant had really 
been proceeded ex-parte thereby rendering the said order 
untenable in law, as claimed, should the matter be remitted to 
the High Court for reconsideration. The second question 
arising is with regard to the order dated 12.08.2009 passed 
B 
by the High Court in First Appeal No. 693 of 1987 so far as the 
merits thereof is concerned. 
14. The detailed facts in which the appellant-8th defendant 
came to be impleaded in the suit following the death of 
Madhulekha Vidyarthi (defendant No. 2) and thereafter on the 
C death of Srilekha Vidyarthi (defendant No. 1) has already been 
seen. From the facts recorded by the High Court in its order 
dated 24.11.2009 it is clear and evident that the appellant had 
participated in the proceeding before the High Court at various 
stages through counsels. Therefore, there is no escape from 
D the conclusion that the order passed in the appeal was not an 
ex-parte order as required to be understood in law. The 
appellant was already on record as the legal heir of Madhulekha 
Vidyarthi (defendant No. 2) and was represented by a counsel. 
The High court had passed its final order after hearing the said 
E 
counsel and upon consideration of the written arguments filed 
in the case. In its order_ dated 24.11.2009 the High Court has 
observed that full opportunity of hearing on merits was afforded 
to the appellant. Even before us,
the appellant has been heard 
at length on the merits of the case. In these circumstances 
F 
there can hardly be any justification to remand the matter to 
the High Court for a fresh consideration by setting aside the 
impugned order. 
15. Insofar as the merits of the order of the High Court is 
G concerned, the sole question involved is whether the suit 
property was purchased by Rama Vidyarthi, (defendant No.1) 
out of the joint family funds or from her own income. The affidavit 
of Rama Vidyarthi in Suit No. 147 of 1968 filed by Savitri 
Vidyarthi discloses that she was looking after the family as the 
H
SHREYA VIDYARTHI v. AS HOK VIDYARTHI & ORS. 
1201 
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
Managertaking care of the respondent No.1, her step son i.e. 
A 
the son of the first wife of Hari Shankar Vidyarthi. In the said 
affidavit, it is also admitted that she had 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 which she had generated on her own. The B 
virtual admission by the predecesso~-in-interest of the 
appellant of the use of the insurance money to acquire the suit 
property is significant. Though the claim of absolute ownership 
of the suit property had been made by Rama Vidyarthi in the 
• 
aforesaid affidavit, the said claim is belied by the true legal C 
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 
D 
the view expressed by this Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi & Anr. 
vs. Smt. Usha Devi' which is extracted below. (Paragraph 
12) 
"12. Moreover there is one other strong 
circumstance in this case which dissuades us from 
E 
taking a view contrary to the decisions of all other 
High Courts and accepting the view expressed by 
the Delhi High Court in the two recent judgments 
delivered in the year 1978 and in the year 1982.
The Act has been in force from the year 1938 and 
F 
all along almost all the High Courts in India have 
taken the view that a mere nomination effected 
· under Section 39 does not deprive the heirs of their 
rights in the amount payable under a life insurance 
policy. Yet Parliament has not chosen to make any 
G 
amendment to the Act. In such a situation unless 
there are strong and compelling reasons to hold 
that all these decisions are wholly erroneous, the 
1 1984 (1) sec 424 
H
1202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Court should be slow to take a different view. The 
reasons given by the Delhi High Court are 
unconvincing. We, therefore, hold that the judgments 
of the Delhi High Court in Fauza Singh case and in 
Uma Sehgal case do not lay down the law correctly. 
B 
They are, therefore, overruled. We approve the 
views expressed by the other High Courts on the 
meaning of Section 39 of the Act and hold that a 
mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Act 
does not have the effect of conferring on the 
C 
nominee any beneficial interest in the amount 
payable under the life insurance policy on the death 
of the assured. The nomination only indicates the 
hand which is authorised to receive the amount, on 
the payment of which the insurer gets a valid 
D 
discharge of its liability under the policy. The 
amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of 
the assured in accordance with the law of 
succession governing them." 
16. The fact that the family was peacefully living together 
E 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 
F ·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 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 
G 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. Accordingly, there can be no justification to cause any 
H
SHREYAVIDYARTHI v. ASHOKVIDYARTHl&ORS. 
1203 
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
interference with the conclusion reached by the High Court on A 
the issue of existence of a joint family. 
17. 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. 2 holding 
that a Hindu widow cannot act as the Karta of a HUF which 
B 
role the law had assigned only to males who alone could be 
coparceners (prior to the amendment of the Hindu Succession 
Act in 2005). The High Court answered the question in favour 
of the respondent-plaintiff by relying on the decision of this 
Court in Controller of Estate Duty, Madras Vs. Alladi C 
Kuppuswamy3.wherein the rights enjoyed by a Hindu widow 
during time when the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 
1937 remained in force were traced and held to be akin to all 
rights enjoyed by the deceased husband as a coparcener 
though the same were bound by time i.e. life time of the widow D 
(concept of limited estate) and without any authority 9r power 
of alienation. We do not consider it necessary to go into the 
question of the applicability of the ratio of the decision in 
Controller of Estate Duty, Madras (supra) to the present 
case inasmuch as in the above case the position of a Hindu E 
widow in th~ co-parcenary and her right to co-parcenary 
property to the extent of the interest of her deceased husband 
was considered in the conlext of the specific
provisions of the 
Estate Duty Act, 1953. The issue(s) arising presently are 
required to be answered from a somewhat different F 
perspective. 
18. 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 G 
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 
2 AIR 1966 SC 24 
'[1977 (3) sec 3851 
H
. 1204 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
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) is a minor. In such a situation obviously the HUF 
B 
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 in our opinion 
rightly, to be consistent with the law by the Calcutta High Court 
C 
in Sushi/a Devi Rampuria v. Income Tax Officer and Anr. 4 
rendered in the context of the provisions ofthe Income Tax Act 
and while determining the liability of such a HUF to assessment 
under the Act. Coincidently the aforesaid decision of the 
Calcutta High Court was noticed in Commissioner of Income 
D Tax vs. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra). 
19. A similar proposition of law is also to be found in 
decision· of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dhujram v. 
Chandan Singh & Ors. 5 though, again, in a little different 
context. The High Court had expressed the view that the word 
E 'Manager' would be consistent with the law if understood with 
reference to the mother as the natural guardian and not as the 
Karta of the HUF. 
20. In the present case, Rallila Vidya!ihi was the step 
F 
mother of
the respondent-plaintiff-Ashok Vidyarthi who at the 
time of the death of his father- Hari ShankarVidyarthi, was a 
minor. The respondent plaintiff was the only surviving male 
coparcener after the death of Hari Shankar Vidyarthi. The 
materials on record indicate that the natural mother of Ashok 
G Vidyarthi, Smt. Savitri Vidyarthi, had played a submissive role 
in the affairs of the joint family and the step mother, Rama 
Vidyarthi i.e. second wife of Hari Shankar Vidyarthi had played 
an active and dominant role in managing the said affairs. The 
4 AIR 1959 Cal 697 
H 
5 1974 MPL J554
SHREYA VIDYARTHI v. ASHOK VIDYARTHI & ORS. 
1205 
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
aforesaid role of Rama Vidyarthi was not opposed by the 
A 
natural mother, Savitri Vidyarthi. Therefore, the same can very 
well be understood to be in her capacity as the step mother of 
-, 
the respondent-plaintiff-Ashok Vidyarthi and, therefore, 
consistent with the legal position which recognizes a Hindu 
Widow acting as the Manager of the HUF in her capacity as 
B 
the guardian of the sole surviving minor male coparcener. Such 
a role necessarily has to be distinguished from that of a Karta 
which position the Hindu widow cannot assume by virtue of 
her dis-entitlement to be a coparcener in the HUF of her 
husband. Regrettably the position remain unaltered even after C 
the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act in 2005. 
21. In the light of the above, we cannot find any error in 
the ultimate conclusion of the High Court on the issue in 
question though our reasons forthe aforesaid conclusion are 
somewhat different. 
D 
22. Before parting we may note that the history of the 
earlier litigation between the parties involving the suit property 
would not affect the maintainability of the suit in question (630 
of 1978). Suit No.37of1969 filed by Rama Vidyarthi was a E 
suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act whereas Suit 
No.147 of 1968 and Suit No. 21/70/1976 filed by first wife 
Savitri Vidyarthi and Ashok Vidyarthi, respectively, were 
dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on uccount of non-
payment of court fee. In these circumstances, the suit out of F 
which the present appeal has arisen i.e. Suit No. 630 of 1978 
was clearly maintainable under Order VII Rule 13 CPC. 
23. The apportionment of shares of the parties in the suit 
property made by the High Court, in the manner discussed 
above, also does not disclose any illegality or infirmity so as G 
to justify any correction by us. It is our considered view that 
having held and rightly that the suit property was a joint family 
property, the respondent-plaintiff was found entitled to seek 
partition thereof and on that basis the apportionment of shares 
H

1206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 14 S.C.R. 
A in the suit property between the plaintiff and the contesting 
eighth defendant was rightly made by the High Court in 
accordance with the reliefs sought in the suit. 
24. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit 
in these appeals, the same are being accordingly dismissed. 
B However, in the facts of the case we leave the parties to bear 
their own costs. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeals dismissed.