Joint Hindu Coparcenary Analysis

Karta: The position of the Karta in a Hindu coparcenary is a case of corporate personality. In coparcenary framework albeit every individual from the joint Hindu Family has a few rights and obligations and despite the fact that it is a solitary familial unit, a Joint Hindu Family does not have a different legitimate character and is not a juristic person. It is not fit for holding property and the law does not credit any identity to a Joint Hindu Family. The Karta is overall head of the joint family who manages the entire family property. He has a right to alienate the property and different individuals from the family are under his control. He can sue and be sued for the benefit of the joint family. In juristic terms, he is a corporation
However, juridical individual in the symbol is not the material picture but rather the picture forms itself into a legal person. According to Hindu law and different choices of the courts, the position of idol is that of a minor and a manager is selected to act on behalf of the idol. Like a minor, an idol can't convey what needs be and like a guardian, the manager has a few constraints under which he needs to act and play out its obligations.
Supreme Court of India in, Yogendra Nath Naskar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, held that Hindu Idol is a Juristic Person capable of holding property and of being taxed through its shebaits who are entrusted with management of
The provisions of Article 299(1) are mandatory in character and any contravention thereof nullifies the contract and makes it void. The provisions of Article 299(1) have not been enacted for the sake of mere form but they have been enacted for safeguarding the Government against the unauthorised contracts. The provisions are embodied in the constitution on the ground of public policy on the ground of protection of general public and these formalities cannot be waived or dispensed with.
 Can Sue and be Sued
Article 300 of Indian Constitution:
(1) The Government of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India and the Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the State and may, subject to any provisions which may be made by Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this Constitution, sue or be sued in relation to their respective affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of India and the corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted.
(2) If at the commencement of this Constitution:
(a) any legal proceedings are pending to which the Dominion of India is a party, the Union of India shall be deemed to be substituted for the Dominion in those proceedings;