Moot Court

Competition
State Level
@ Dr B.R.
Ambedkar
Law 2016
College,
Hyderabad,
India
Written Statements On Behalf of Petitioner
Contents

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... 4

Table Of Authorities ............................................................................................. 5

Statement Of Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 7

ISSUES PRESENTED........................................................................................ 10

BODY OF PLEADINGS .................................................................................... 11

ISSUE: WHETHER GEETHA AGARWAL IS A CO-PARCENER............. 11

FACTS ........................................................................................................ 11

RULE .......................................................................................................... 11

APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 11

NO COPARCENARY BY AGREEMENT................................................ 11

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 12

ISSUE: WHETHER SHE (GEETHA AGARWAL) IS LEGALLY

ENTITLED TO BE THE “KARTHA” OF HUF Rule .................................... 13

FACTS ........................................................................................................ 13

RULE .......................................................................................................... 13

APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 14

SUMMATION ............................................................................................ 18

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 21

Page 1
ISSUE: WHETHER THE GIFT MADE IN FAVOR OF RAMYA

AGARWAL IS VALID? ................................................................................. 22

FACTS ........................................................................................................ 22

RULE .......................................................................................................... 22

APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 22

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 25

ISSUE: WHETHER THE WILL MADE IN FAVOR OF RAMESH

AGARWAL IS VALID?? ............................................................................... 26

FACTS ........................................................................................................ 26

RULE .......................................................................................................... 26

APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 26

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 29

ISSUE: VALIDITY OF SALE OF 30 ACRES OF FARM AGRICULTURAL

LAND FOR RS 50 CRORES TO RENOVATE THE STUDIO .................... 30

FACTS ........................................................................................................ 30

RULE .......................................................................................................... 30

APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 30

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 31

Page 2
 ISSUE: VALIDITY OF MORTGAGE OF SHARES IN S.R.NBFC TO

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD, BAGHLINGAMPALLY BRANCH,

HYDERABAD TO PERFORM THE MARRIAGE OF RAMYA AGARWAL

IS VALID? ....................................................................................................... 32

FACTS ........................................................................................................ 32

RULE .......................................................................................................... 32

APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 32

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 33

ISSUE: WHETHER THE INCOME OF SAILESH AGARWAL BE

INCLUDED IN HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY? ........................................ 34

FACTS ........................................................................................................ 34

RULE .......................................................................................................... 34

APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 34

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 35

RELIEF AND PRAYER..................................................................................... 36

Page 3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Report

Anr Another

Art Article

CJ Chief Justice

CJI Chief Justice of India

CPC Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Govt. Government

HC High Court

IPC Indian Penal Code

Ors Others

PIL Public Interest Litigation

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Sec Section

Supp SCC Supplementary Supreme Court Cases

Vs Versus

Page 4
Table Of Authorities

Cases

Annamalai Chetty Vs Murugasa Chetty (1903) 30 IA 220........................... 22, 26

Bhowani Vs Jagannath (1909) 13 CWN 309, 313 ............................................. 23

Biraj Mohan Vs Abani Kanta AIR 1938 Cal 610 ......................................... 22, 26

CIT v Seth Govindram Sugar Mills [1965] 57 ITR 510 (SC) .......................... 18

CIT v Seth Laxmi Narayan Raghunathdas [1948] 16 ITR 313 (Nag.) ........... 16

Commr. Of Income Tax Vs Thyagarajan AIR 1964 Mad 58.............................. 12

Damodara Vs Banamali AIR 1967 Ori 61(62)................................................... 24

Jagmohan Vs Ranchhoddas ILR (1945) Nag 892 .............................................. 23

Jugmohandas Vs Sir Mangaldas (1886) 10 Bom 528 ........................................ 23

Karsondas Dharamsey Vs Gangabai (1908) 32 Bom 479 ................................. 12

Kishan Parshad Vs Harnarain Singh, 38 I. A. 45 at p. 51 : (33 ALL. 272) 33, 34

Laxmappa Vs Balawa Kom Tirkappa Chavdi 1997 (1) HLR 203 (SC) ............. 24

Madan Mohan Vs Balakrishan ILR (1965) 1 Punj 367...................................... 23

Myna Baee Vs Ootaram (1861) 8 MIA 400 ....................................................... 12

Official Assignee Vs Rajabadar (1924) 46 MLJ 145.......................................... 23

P.S. Sairam Vs P.S. Ramarao Pisey AIR 2004 SC 1619................................... 28

Packiriswamy Vs Doraiswamy (1931) 9 Rang 266 ............................................ 12

R. Rajagopla Reddy and others Vs Padmini Chandrasekharan and others, AIR

1990 Mad. 353 (DB) ........................................................................................ 11

Page 5
Ramachandra Vs Chinabhai AIR 1944 Bom 76, 79 .................................... 22, 26

Rammaya Vs kolanda Goundan ILR 1940, Mad 322 ......................................... 23

Seethamma Vs Veerannachetty AIR 1950 Mad 785........................................... 23

Smt. Champa Kumari Singhi v Addl. Member, Board of Revenue [1962] 46

ITR 81 (Cal.) ................................................................................................... 18

Sobhagsingh Vs Pirthe Singh ILR (1950) Nag 160 ............................................ 12

Sudarswana Maistri Vs Narasimjul (1902) 25 Mad 149, 154 ............................ 12

Sushila Devi Rampuria v ITO [1960] 38 ITR 316 (Cal.)................................. 18

Tarachand Vs Reebram (1866) 3 MHC 177 ....................................................... 23

Statutes

Income-tax Act, 1961.......................................................................................... 14

the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005...........................................passim

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 .................................................................passim

Treatises

Mayne's "Hindu Law and Usage" (9th Ed., s. 271) ....................................... 17

Page 6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Moot Court has jurisdiction in this matter, both personal as well subject

matter, to entertain this appeal as well pass any order that is binding upon the

parties.

Page 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS

Page 8
Page 9
ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Assuming the existence of HUF, whether Geetha Agarwal is a co-

parcener

2. If so, whether she (Geetha Agarwal) is legally entitled to be the “Kartha”

of the HUF after the enactment of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,

2005

3. Whether the gift made in favor of Ramya Agarwal is valid?

4. Whether the WILL made in favor of Ramesh Agarwal is valid?

5. Whether the sale of 30 acres of farm agricultural land for Rs 50 crores to

renovate the studio is valid

6. Whether mortgage of shares in S.R.NBFC to State Bank of Hyderabad,

Baghlingampally Branch, Hyderabad to perform the marriage of Ramya

Agarwal is valid?

7. Whether the income of Sailesh Agarwal be included in Hindu Undivided

Family?

8. To What Relief?

Page 10
BODY OF PLEADINGS

ISSUE: WHETHER GEETHA AGARWAL IS A CO-PARCENER

FACTS

There is no question that Geetha is a co-parcener. The trial court (District

Court) has infact held that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005

allocates and creates to women the same rights on equal footing as with men, as

a coparcener, but could not make the female “Karta” of HUF.

RULE

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 read with The Hindu Succession

(Amendment) Act, 2005.

APPLICATION

In R. Rajagopla Reddy and others Vs Padmini Chandrasekharan and others,

AIR 1990 Mad. 353 (DB), a learned Division Bench of Madras High Court

held, inter alia, as follows: “A coparcenary is purely a creature of law and it

cannot be created by act of parties”.

NO COPARCENARY BY AGREEMENT

A joint family, and its coparcenary with all its incidents are purely a creature of

Hindu Law and cannot be created by act of parties, as the fundemantal principle

Page 11
of the joint family is the tie of sapindaship arising by birth, marriage or

adoption.1

CONCLUSION

In the instant case, there is no question about denying Geetha Agarwal as a co-

parcener in the HUF, especially given the assumption vis-à-vis the existence of

HUF.

1
Sudarswana Maistri Vs Narasimjul (1902) 25 Mad 149, 154; Karsondas Dharamsey Vs Gangabai (1908) 32
Bom 479 ; Myna Baee Vs Ootaram (1861) 8 MIA 400; Packiriswamy Vs Doraiswamy (1931) 9 Rang 266 ;
Sobhagsingh Vs Pirthe Singh ILR (1950) Nag 160 ; Commr. Of Income Tax Vs Thyagarajan AIR 1964 Mad 58;
Page 12
ISSUE: WHETHER SHE (GEETHA AGARWAL) IS LEGALLY

ENTITLED TO BE THE “KARTHA” OF HUF Rule

FACTS

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came to effect from 9-Sep-

2005. The District Court is responsible for arbitrating and taking into

considerations all facts of the matter. Therefore, unless new facts are brought to

light, it must be assumed that Geetha Agarwal is having all the rights of a Co-

parcener.

RULE

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 read with The Hindu Succession

(Amendment) Act, 2005.

HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 Sec. 6 delves about Devolution of interest

in coparcenary property

(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment)

Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the

daughter of a coparcener shall,—

(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as

the son;

(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have

had if she had been a son;

Page 13
 (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary

property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara

coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a

coparcener

APPLICATION

The term "Hindu Undivided Family" has been defined under the Income-tax

Act, 1961. The expression is however defined under the "Hindu Law" as a

family, which consists of all persons lineally descendant from a common

ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. However,

coparcener is a narrow term and it means a person who acquires by birth an

interest in Joint Family properties such as sons, grandsons and great grandsons

of the holder of the Joint Family property. Female members do not enjoy right

to enforce partition though they are entitled for maintenance out of the family

property and the share in the properties on the partition if made.

The question arises whether a female member can become the Karta of HUF

when a senior male member has resigned or is incapacitated from acting as

Karta and the surviving member, the other members of the family are females or

minors.

Page 14
PROPOSITION & ARGUMENT

A female member cannot be a coparcener of HUF and hence, cannot become

Karta of HUF. However, when HUF consists of mother and a minor son, minor

can act as Karta through his natural guardian i.e. mother in absence of father.

VIEW AGAINST THE PROPOSITION

It is true that according to the old archaic views a woman was supposed to

remain under the perpetual tutelage of some male members of the family

throughout her life and that she did not deserve freedom. It cannot, however, be

denied that the authority of the old Smritis and their commentaries has been

rudely shaken by the requirements of the modern age and that the old principles

of textual Hindu Law have been fundamentally modified or altered in many

respects by judicial decisions and various legislative Acts. Hindu society has

tremendously progressed in tune with the spirit of modern times and our

concepts regarding the status of woman have radically changed not only in the

domain of law but also in the body politic. It is, therefore, improper and

unjustifiable to say that a woman is inherently incompetent to be the manager of

a joint family, because there are some obsolete and antediluvian texts, which

contain disparaging remarks about woman, in total disregard of the needs of the

modern society and the vast changes in Hindu Law.

Page 15
The Nagpur High Court in the case of CIT v Seth Laxmi Narayan

Raghunathdas [1948] 16 ITR 313 (Nag.), while considering an issue as to

whether a widow can be Karta of her husband's HUF, held as under -

"According to the Dayabhaga Law, the foundation of a coparcenary is first laid

on the death of the father. The property of the deceased, separate as well as

ancestral is inherited by his male heirs as coparcenary property and is held by

them as coparceners. On the death of any one of the coparceners, his heirs

succeed to his share in the coparcenary property and they become members of

the coparcenary. Such heirs, in default of male issue, may be his widow or

widows or his daughter or daughters. These too, though females, get into the

coparcenary, representing the share of their husband or father as the case may

be. A coparcenary under the Dayabhaga Law may thus consist of males as well

as females. It is, therefore, obvious that under the Dayabhaga Law a widow

becomes a coparcener and she can consequently become the karta of the

coparcenary or the joint family, although she or any other coparcener does not

possess the right of survivorship, particularly if she is the only member sui juris

left in the family.

It is true that under the Mitakshara Law, no female can be a coparcener with

male coparceners, presumably, because she does not possess the right to take

by survivorship, but we do not think that either this right or the status of a

Page 16
coparcener is a sine qua non of competency to become the manager of a joint

Hindu family of which she is admitted as a member."

Based on the above discussion, the Nagpur High Court held that a widow was

competent to become the Karta of the Hindu undivided family consisting of

herself and her two minor sons. It is notable that the High Court observed that

there was no legal prohibition against the mother being the de facto manager.

The High Court further observed that it is beyond question that the Hindu

Women’s Rights to Property Act have materially changed the status of a Hindu

woman. If a coparcener gets interest in the joint family property by birth, she

gets interest by marriage. She has as much right to enforce a partition of her

share as a coparcener has and, except for the right of survivorship, her position

is practically analogous to that of the coparcerner. No doubt the interest that she

gets is a widow's estate, but in the matter of management of that estate she has

the same rights and is subject to the same disabilities as the managing

coparceners of a joint Hindu Family.

VIEW IN FAVOUR OF THE PROPOSITION

The following passage from Mayne's "Hindu Law and Usage" (9th Ed., s.

271) deals with coparceners -

"The question in each case will be, who are the persons who have taken an

interest in the property by birth. The answer will be, that they are the persons

Page 17
who offer the funeral cakes to the owner of the property, that is to say, the three

generations next to the owner in unbroken male descent."

Thus, it has been a long-established custom that only males can offer funeral

cakes to their ancestors and accordingly, they were only entitled to be the

coparceners and females were never allowed to be the coparceners. Further, the

females were not allowed to manage a family, as the Hindu society over the

years was dominated by males. As a custom, the family is required to be fed and

managed by the males. As a result of this the females were not allowed to

manage the family and they only had a right to maintenance.

The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Seth Govindram Sugar Mills [1965]

57 ITR 510 (SC) has held that a widow cannot be Karta of the HUF, though she

can be a manager of HUF for the purposes of Income-tax assessment. This

decision was delivered after considering the decision of Nagpur High Court in

the case of Seth Laxmi Narayan Raghunathdas (supra).

A similar view was held by the Calcutta High Court in the following cases -

(1) Sushila Devi Rampuria v ITO [1960] 38 ITR 316 (Cal.)

The Supreme Court in the case of Seth Govindram Sugar Mills (supra) had

rejected the proposition of female member being Karta of HUF only on a single

Page 18
ground that she did not have the legal qualification of "coparcenership" for

becoming Karta because as per the well-established principles of Hindu Law

only a coparcener can become the Karta of HUF. Thus, as per the law it stands

today a female member cannot become Karta of HUF.

However, a proposed amendment to the Hindu Succession Act seeks to admit

females into the coparcenary. Let us examine the effect of this amendment on

the status of females in HUF. There can be three types of female members in

HUF -

i) Daughter-in-law (including widows)

Thus, the entry into HUF is still governed by birth. Daughter-in-laws does not

get a right to become coparcener. Thus, the status of daughter-in-laws does not

change at all and their rights will remain the same as they before the

amendment. The Supreme Court ruling in Seth Govindram Sugar Mills

(supra) will still hold good wherein it was held that a widow can never be Karta

of her deceased husband's HUF.

As far as daughter is concerned, post-amendment, she becomes member of the

HUF on birth, and for all practical purposes, is to be regarded as a coparcener in

her own right in the same manner as the son and shall have the same rights

Page 19
under the coparcenary property as she would have had, if she had been a son;

inclusive of the right to claim by survivorship. She shall be subject to the same

rights and disabilities in respect thereof as a son. As per the tenets of Hindu

Law, on death of Karta the HUF is not disrupted and does not become non-

existent. The eldest coparcener of the family steps into the shoes of the deceased

Karta. Thus, after the amendment, upon the death of the father, the unmarried

major daughter, if she is the eldest surviving coparcener, will become the Karta

of her father's HUF even if her mother is alive, as her mother would never be

treated as a coparcener. This situation is anomalous as the eldest surviving

member of HUF would be the widow (mother) and she would be the best person

who can look after the interests of all the other surviving members of her

husband's HUF. This could not be the intention of the law to give the right to a

daughter to manage the affairs of her father's family upon her father's death,

even if her mother is still alive.

As far as married daughter is concerned, after the amendment becomes

operative, she continues to be a coparcener of her father's HUF though she

ceases to be a member. Further, she becomes member of her husband's HUF,

but she cannot be a coparcener there. A very peculiar position will arise

inasmuch as such daughter, upon her marriage, will automatically become a

member of her husband's family while she will continue to be coparcener in her

father's family. It appears that she being a coparcener of her father's family even

Page 20
after marriage, she can be Karta of her father's HUF. However, this cannot be

the intention of the law. Since, married daughter is not a member of the father's

family, she cannot become Karta of her father's HUF even though she can have

all other coparcenery rights in her father's HUF.

CONCLUSION

Thus, it conclusion that even under the amended law, though a female, in the

instant case, Geetha Agarwal, can be a coparcener of HUF, she cannot be a

Karta of HUF.

Page 21
ISSUE: WHETHER THE GIFT MADE IN FAVOR OF RAMYA

AGARWAL IS VALID?

FACTS

According to the problem statement, one can clearly infer the following facts:

(1) Sunil Agarwal became the head of HUF after 1995.

(2) Sunil Agarwal alienated 15 acres (SR Agarwal Film Studio) by way of

gift in favor of Ramya Agarwal (daughter of predeceased son Somesh

Agarwal)

RULE

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 read with The Hindu Succession

(Amendment) Act, 2005.

APPLICATION

RIGHTS OF A KARTA

MANAGER’S LEGAL POSITION

The position of a Karta or Manager is sui generis; the relation between him and

other members of the family is not that of a principal and agent, or of partners.

It is more like that of a trustee and cestui que trust. 2

2
Annamalai Chetty Vs Murugasa Chetty (1903) 30 IA 220; Biraj Mohan Vs Abani Kanta AIR 1938 Cal 610;
Ramachandra Vs Chinabhai AIR 1944 Bom 76, 79
Page 22
RIGHT TO SPEND & GIFT

So long as the manager of the joint family administers the funds for the

purposes of the family, he is not under the same obligation to economize or to

save, as would be the case with an agent or trustee.3 If he spends more on family

purposes than what other members approve of, the only remedy of the latter is

to have a partition.The account is then taken upon the footing of what has been

spent, and what remains, and not upon the footing of what might have been

spent, if fragility and skill had been employed.4

The manager can spend for family purposes more on one branch of the family

than on another and his discretion is final. He is equally competent to allot to

any individual member a portion of the family property to enable him to

maintain himself out of its income.5

NOT ACCOUNTABLE FOR PAST TRANSACTIONS

As long as he applies the funds at his disposal for family purposes, the head of

the family cannot in general be called on to defend the propriety of his past

transactions6, unless fraud, misappropriation or improper conversion is

established.7 A managing member, it has been held is not bound to keep

3
Bhowani Vs Jagannath (1909) 13 CWN 309, 313
4
Tarachand Vs Reebram (1866) 3 MHC 177; Jugmohandas Vs Sir Mangaldas (1886) 10 Bom 528;Official
Assignee Vs Rajabadar (1924) 46 MLJ 145
5
Rammaya Vs kolanda Goundan ILR 1940, Mad 322
6
Jagmohan Vs Ranchhoddas ILR (1945) Nag 892; Madan Mohan Vs Balakrishan ILR (1965) 1 Punj 367
7
Seethamma Vs Veerannachetty AIR 1950 Mad 785
Page 23
accounts. In the absence of fraud or improper conduct, the Karta can be held

accountable only for the existing state of the joint family property. 8

A Hindu father is legally bound to maintain his daughter and also under a moral

obligation to maintain his destitute endowed daughter if she is not able to

maintain herself from the estate of her deceased husband. Karta of the family

has power to alienate ancestral property to meet such obligation to maintain his

destitute widowed daughter.9

BLENDING OF PROPERTY BY COPARCENER

Blending is a power given only to coparceners. Since females are not

coparceners, a female member of a joint family cannot blend her individual

property with HUF property. However, such an act shall be considered as a gift

and it shall become property of the HUF. (Refer Mallesappa vs. Desai (AIR

(1961) SC 1298) and Pushpa Devi vs. CIT 91977 109 ITR 730(SC). After 9-

Sep-2005 daughter, being a coparcener can blend her individual property into

the HUF.

In the instant matter, there is no question that Ramya is a member of the HUF

and therefore entitled to be a coparcener. Any gift made to Ramya therefore can

be deemed to be a gift made to the HUF, in this case, by the Karta of the HUF,

namely Sunil Agarwal. Hence, the gift by Sunil Agarawal to Ramya is valid.

8
Damodara Vs Banamali AIR 1967 Ori 61(62)
9
Laxmappa Vs Balawa Kom Tirkappa Chavdi 1997 (1) HLR 203 (SC)
Page 24
CONCLUSION

Given the overwhelming facts of the case, and the law as well as supported by

numerous prior legal precedents, therefore the Hon’ble Moot Court may grant

that “The Gift Made In Favor Of Ramya Agarwal Is Valid”.

Page 25
ISSUE: WHETHER THE WILL MADE IN FAVOR OF RAMESH

AGARWAL IS VALID??

FACTS

According to the problem statement, one can clearly infer the following facts:

(1) Sunil Agarwal became the head of HUF after 1995.

(2) Sunil made a WILL in favor or Ramesh (of predeceased son Somesh

Agarwal)

RULE

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 read with The Hindu Succession

(Amendment) Act, 2005.

APPLICATION

KARTA’S LEGAL POSITION

The position of a Karta or Manager is sui generis; the relation between him and

other members of the family is not that of a principal and agent, or of partners.

It is more like that of a trustee and cestui que trust. 10

ARTICLE 236 OF THE MULLA HINDU LAW DEFINES "KARTA"

Article 236 of the Mulla Hindu Law defines "Karta" as follows:

10
Annamalai Chetty Vs Murugasa Chetty (1903) 30 IA 220; Biraj Mohan Vs Abani Kanta AIR 1938 Cal 610;
Ramachandra Vs Chinabhai AIR 1944 Bom 76, 79
Page 26
Manager - Property belonging to a joint family is ordinarily managed by the

father or other senior member for the time being of the family: The Manager of

a joint family is called Karta.

In a HUF, the responsibility of Karta is to manage the HUF property. He is the

custodian of the income and assets of the HUF. He is liable to make good to

other family members with their shares of all sums which he has

misappropriated or which he spent for purposes other than those in which the

joint family was interested. His role is crucial. He is entrusted not only with the

management of land/assets of the family but also is entrusted to do the general

welfare of the family.

His position is different from the manager of a company or a partnership. The

reason behind it is that though the coparcenery deals with lands, assets/property

but in an entirely different fashion. When a Karta is bestowed with such a

position it is something, which takes place under the operation of law.

AS KARTA, SUNIL HAS POWERS TO WRITE A WILL

Law as enumerated under Article 222 of Mulla Hindu Law is well settled that a

Hindu, even if be joint, may possess separate property. Such property belongs

exclusively to him. No other member of the coparcenary, not even his male

issue, acquires any interest in it by birth, and on his death intestate, it passes by

succession to his heirs, and not by survivorship to the surviving coparceners.

Page 27
POWERS TO SEPARATE PROPERTY THROUGH WILL

It is now settled that the karta can alienate the joint family property with the

consent of the coparceners even if none of the above exceptional cases exist.

Alienation without the consent of the coparcener, which is not for legal

necessity, is void.

It is well established that there is no presumption under Hindu Law that a

business standing in the name of any member of the joint family is a joint

family business even if that member is the manager of the joint family. Unless it

could be shown that the business in the hands of the coparcener grew up with

the assistance of the joint family property or joint family funds or that the

earnings of the business were blender with the joint family estate, the business

remains free and separate.

Law as enumerated under Article 222 of Mulla Hindu Law is well settled that a

Hindu, even if be joint, may possess separate property. Such property belongs

exclusively to him. No other member of the coparcenary, not even his male

issue, acquires any interest in it by birth, and on his death intestate, it passes by

succession to his heirs, and not by survivorship to the surviving coparceners.11

11
P.S. Sairam Vs P.S. Ramarao Pisey AIR 2004 SC 1619
Page 28
CONCLUSION

Given the overwhelming facts of the case, and the law as well as supported by

numerous prior legal precedents, therefore the Hon’ble Moot Court may grant

that “THE WILL MADE IN FAVOR OF RAMESH AGARWAL IS VALID”.

Page 29
ISSUE: VALIDITY OF SALE OF 30 ACRES OF FARM

AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR RS 50 CRORES TO RENOVATE THE

STUDIO

FACTS

According to the problem statement, one can clearly infer the following facts:

(1) Sunil Agarwal the head of HUF passed away in 2005

(2) Suresh Agarwal being elder among coparceners assumed the position of

“Karta” of the Joint Hindu Family

(3) Suresh sold 30 acres of Farm agricultural land for 50 Crores to Mr Anil

(4) Mr Suresh is on record to state that the sale was to augment Hindu Joint

Family Business

RULE

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 read with The Hindu Succession

(Amendment) Act, 2005.

APPLICATION

RIGHT TO AUGMENT THE FAMILY BUSINESS IS VALID & LEGIT

The karta has the power to augment the family business, and therefore enter into

contracts and such contracts are binding on the family. It is also now settled that

a contract, otherwise specifically enforceable, is also specifically enforceable

against the family.

Page 30
POWERS OF MANAGEMENT

As the head of the family, karta’s powers of management are almost absolute.

He may mange the property of the family, the family affairs, the business the

way he likes, he may mismanage also, nobody can question his

mismanagement. He is not liable for positive failures. He may discriminate

between the members of the family. But he cannot deny maintenance

/use/occupation of property to any coparcener. The ever-hanging sword of

partition is a great check on his absolute powers. Probably, the more effective

check is the affection and the natural concern that he has for the members of the

family and the complete faith and confidence that members repose in him.

CONCLUSION

Given the overwhelming facts of the case, and the law as well as supported by

numerous prior legal precedents, therefore the Hon’ble Moot Court may grant

that “THE SALE OF 30 ACRES OF FARM AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR

RS 50 CRORES TO RENOVATE THE STUDIO IS VALID”.

Page 31
ISSUE: VALIDITY OF MORTGAGE OF SHARES IN S.R.NBFC TO

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD, BAGHLINGAMPALLY BRANCH,

HYDERABAD TO PERFORM THE MARRIAGE OF RAMYA

AGARWAL IS VALID?

FACTS

According to the problem statement, one can clearly infer the following facts:

(1) Sunil Agarwal the head of HUF passed away in 2005

(2) Suresh Agarwal being elder among coparceners assumed the position of

“Karta” of the Joint Hindu Family

(3) Suresh mortgaged shares in SR NBFC TO SBH to perform the marriage

of Ramya Agarwal

RULE

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 read with The Hindu Succession

(Amendment) Act, 2005.

APPLICATION

RIGHT TO MORTGATE FAMILY PROPERTY IS LEGIT

In the case before the Hon’ble Moot Court the joint family was sued.

Admittedly Suresh was the karta of the joint family. The position of the karta is

sui generis. He represents the family and has power as karta of making

contracts, giving receipts and compromising or discharging claims ordinarily

Page 32
incidental to the family business: Kishan Parshad Vs Harnarain Singh, 38 I. A.

45 at p. 51 : (33 ALL. 272).

RIGHT TO MORTGATE FAMILY PROPERTY IS LEGIT

So long as the manager of the joint family administers the funds for the welfare

of the family, one cannot question the validity of the said transaction.

CONCLUSION

Given the overwhelming facts of the case, and the law as well as supported by

numerous prior legal precedents, therefore the Hon’ble Moot Court may grant

that “MORTGAGE OF SHARES IN S.R.NBFC TO STATE BANK OF

HYDERABAD, BAGHLINGAMPALLY BRANCH, HYDERABAD TO

PERFORM THE MARRIAGE OF RAMYA AGARWAL IS VALID”.

Page 33
ISSUE: WHETHER THE INCOME OF SAILESH AGARWAL BE

INCLUDED IN HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY?

FACTS

According to the problem statement, one can clearly infer the following facts:

(1) Sunil Agarwal the head of HUF passed away in 2005

(2) Suresh Agarwal being elder among coparceners assumed the position of

“Karta” of the Joint Hindu Family

(3) Sailesh studied medicine and obtained MD at the expenses of joint family

property. After marriage with Sanjana, Sailesh setup a nursing home and

had flourishing practice.

(4) Sailesh kept his earnings for himself instead of contributing to HUF

RULE

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 read with The Hindu Succession

(Amendment) Act, 2005.

APPLICATION

SAILESH BENEFITED FROM HUF, THEREFORE OWES HUF

In the case before the Hon’ble Moot Court the joint family was sued.

Admittedly Suresh was the karta of the joint family. Sailesh could not have

become an MD in Cardiology without having the consent of HUF assets.

Page 34
DESPITE HAVING A FLOURISHING PRACTICE, SAILESH IS

WRONG IN NOT CONTRIBUTING EARNINGS TO HUF

So long as the manager of the joint family administers the funds for the welfare

of the family, one cannot question the validity of the said transaction. Since it

cannot be said that Sailesh benefitted from the HUF, it is therefore justified in

Sailesh making a contribution in whole or part to HUF. In fact, not making the

contribution brings about a discord within other members of the HUF, which

can be ameliorated through a Court Order that awards the income of Sailesh to

be drawn into the HUF funds, either in part or in whole. The exact amount of

the contribution of Sailesh’s income is a matter of fact, that can best to

arbitrated in a Trial Court, and therefore, it is well justified to revert the matter

back to the District Court for a revised order in this regard.

CONCLUSION

Given the overwhelming facts of the case, and the law as well as supported by

numerous prior legal precedents, therefore the Hon’ble Moot Court may grant

that “THE INCOME OF SAILESH AGARWAL BE INCLUDED IN HINDU

UNDIVIDED FAMILY”.

Page 35
RELIEF AND PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Having considered the totality of all facts, issues of law (De

Novo), the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to magnanimously, issue a verdict

that DECLARES and AWARDS

1. THAT Geetha Agarwal is deemed a co-parcener

2. However, she (Geetha Agarwal) is NOT legally entitled to be the

“Kartha” of the HUF after the enactment of Hindu Succession

(Amendment) Act, 2005

3. THAT the gift made in favor of Ramya Agarwal is valid

4. THAT the WILL made in favor of Ramesh Agarwal is valid

5. THAT the sale of 30 acres of farm agricultural land for Rs 50 crores to

renovate the studio is valid

6. THAT mortgage of shares in S.R.NBFC to State Bank of Hyderabad,

Baghlingampally Branch, Hyderabad to perform the marriage of Ramya

Agarwal is valid

7. THAT the income of Sailesh Agarwal be included in Hindu Undivided

Family

8. Any other relief as may be warranted in the given situation

Page 36