• Today: October 31, 2025

Shreya Vidyarthi v. Ashok Vidyarthi

31 October, 2025
151
Shreya Vidyarthi v. Ashok Vidyarthi (AIR 2016 SC 139) — Easy Case Explainer | The Law Easy

Shreya Vidyarthi v. Ashok Vidyarthi

AIR 2016 SC 139 • Classroom-style explainer in simple English

Supreme Court of India 2016 AIR 2016 SC 139 Hindu Law • HUF • Property ~7 min
Author: Gulzar Hashmi India
Published: 31 Oct 2025
Hero image for Shreya Vidyarthi v. Ashok Vidyarthi

Quick Summary

Two questions arose: (1) Did Rama buy the property from joint family funds or from her own money? (2) Can a female be the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family? The Supreme Court clarified that a Hindu widow is not a coparcener and so is not Karta in her own right. But “Karta” and “manager” are not the same. Where the only male coparcener is a minor, the mother can act as his legal guardian and manage the HUF like a Karta until he becomes major. On the facts, the courts treated the suit property as joint family property and the appeal was dismissed.

CASE_TITLE: Shreya Vidyarthi v. Ashok Vidyarthi PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: female as Karta, HUF manager SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: joint family funds, guardian of minor coparcener, Sushila Devi Rampuria PUBLISH_DATE: 31-10-2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India Slug: shreya-vidyarthi-v-ashok-vidyarthi
```

Issues

  1. Was the suit property bought from joint family funds or from Rama’s personal funds?
  2. Can a female be the Karta of a HUF, or only the manager/guardian for a minor male coparcener?

Rules

  • A Hindu widow is not a coparcener and therefore is not Karta in her own right.
  • Karta ≠ Manager: A widow can act as manager of the HUF as the legal guardian of the sole surviving minor male coparcener and perform Karta-like functions until majority.
  • This approach is supported by Sushila Devi Rampuria v. ITO (Calcutta High Court).

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline illustration for Shreya Vidyarthi v. Ashok Vidyarthi
1937

Hari Shankar Vidyarthi married Savitri (mother of the plaintiff Ashok).

1942

Hari Shankar married again, to Rama. Two daughters (Srilekha and Madhulekha) were born from this marriage.

Family Links

Shreya is the adopted daughter of Srilekha and legatee under Madhulekha’s Will.

Management

Rama actively ran family affairs. She was insurance nominee and received maintenance from a trust.

Dispute

Rama bought the suit property. Plaintiff claimed it was HUF property bought from joint family funds, not Rama’s separate money.

Arguments

Appellant / Plaintiff

  • The purchase came from joint family funds; so the property is HUF property.
  • Rama’s active role shows she managed the HUF when the male coparcener was a minor.

Respondent / Defendants

  • Rama used personal funds (maintenance, insurance receipts) to buy the property.
  • A female cannot be Karta; hence claim of HUF purchase should fail.

Judgment

Judgment illustration for Shreya Vidyarthi v. Ashok Vidyarthi

The Supreme Court emphasized that a Hindu widow is not a coparcener and therefore is not Karta by status. However, “Karta” and “manager” are distinct. If the adult male coparcener has died and the sole male heir is a minor, the mother can act as the legal guardian and manage the HUF, performing Karta-like functions in that capacity. On the record, Ashok’s natural mother was passive, while Rama took an active, dominant role consistent with guardian-management. The High Court rightly treated the suit property as joint family property. The appeal was dismissed.

Ratio

A widow is not Karta as she is not a coparcener. Yet, when the only male coparcener is a minor, the mother can act as manager/guardian of the HUF and handle Karta-like duties until majority. On the facts, the purchase was treated as from joint family funds.

Why It Matters

  • Clarity in roles: Separates “Karta” (coparcener role) from “manager” (guardian role).
  • Continuity of HUF: HUF does not end just because there is no adult male; guardian-management keeps it going.
  • Property tracing: Courts will examine sources and control to decide HUF vs personal property.

Key Takeaways

  • Widow ≠ coparcener; not Karta in her own right.
  • Mother can manage HUF as guardian of a minor male coparcener.
  • Source of funds and conduct decide HUF vs personal property.
  • Sushila Devi Rampuria supports guardian-management principle.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic KM-G: Karta? Maybe—Guardian!”

  1. Check Status: Is the male coparcener a minor?
  2. Assign Role: Mother as manager/guardian (not Karta by status).
  3. Trace Funds: Decide HUF vs personal from source + control.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is the suit property HUF property or Rama’s personal property, and can a female be Karta?

Rule

Widow not Karta; may act as manager/guardian for a minor male coparcener; funds/source decide HUF vs personal.

Application

Rama actively managed as guardian; materials suggested purchase linked to joint family; thus treated as HUF asset.

Conclusion

Property is joint family property; appeal dismissed; guardian-management principle affirmed.

Glossary

Karta
Head coparcener who manages HUF by virtue of coparcenary status.
Manager (Guardian)
A person (e.g., mother) managing HUF affairs for a minor male coparcener.
Joint Family Funds
Income or assets belonging to the HUF, not to any single member.

FAQs

Not as a coparcener-Karta. But she can manage the HUF as guardian of a minor male coparcener and perform Karta-like functions till he becomes major.

They trace the source of funds, the conduct of parties, and who controlled the money at the time of purchase.

No. The HUF continues. The mother may manage as guardian until the male coparcener attains majority.

Sushila Devi Rampuria v. ITO (Calcutta High Court) supports a mother managing the HUF as guardian of a minor coparcener.
Reviewed by The Law Easy
Hindu Law HUF Property
```

Comment

Nothing for now