As the previous ones have analyzed, it cannot be said that whenever a carta needs sums of money to pay pre-emption claims and for the prices of new real estate, it is always without any requirement of legal invention and therefore outside the sphere of the father in the family. Nor can it be said that Karta must borrow amounts for such a new acquisition by means of a right of first refusal. These issues must be addressed each time according to the particular circumstances.  Even when the money borrowed from Karta is for his personal purposes, he is not allowed to pledge the family property or use it in any way to meet his own debts. In one of the landmark cases, the Karta were in the United Kingdom and were unable to manage the family and property. Therefore, with the consent of all other family members, the younger brother was made karta. It was declared valid by the court. When karta dies, the position automatically changes to the next male member. It goes wrong if the family accepts that a younger male member holds such a position. Karta has the right to invoke arbitration in the interest of the family, including minors who are bound by the proposed arbitral award over them.
The laws state that once; When a division is made, it is difficult to unite them. However, if the division takes place in a family, it is assumed that the common marital status ends. According to the Mitakshara law, this means the separation of interests and status, which means that if members wish to separate from the common family, they have this right. After separation, Karta will create the accounts in a manner similar to that of a trustee or agent. In the situation where Karta has incurred a debt on the family property, a member is not personally liable, but only up to the limit of his interest. However, in certain circumstances where the contract does claim to be parties, or where they may be treated as parties by reason of their conduct, or where they have accepted the agreement, their limitation is not limited. Therefore, the classification of members as actual parties is essential in determining the liability ratio.  Karta has no more interest in any type of property than any other member of the family, but because of its position as Karta, it has the capacity to dispose of property.  With regard to minors in the common family, it must be assumed that if the manager enters into a contract with an external party and during this period one of the family members is not of age, the contract cannot be considered binding on the minor. This rule derives from the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and here also applies to minors for contracts for the purchase of real estate as well as to Karta contracts for necessities.  With reference to A.
Kunjipokkarukutty v. A Ravunni, was found in the absence of the father in the Dean family, that is, the oldest member of the family considered Karta. This conclusion is based on seniority and the opinion of other members does not matter. It should be noted that a person cannot become karta until the previous karta is alive, despite some exceptions.  Karta has the power to compromise in any dispute concerning family property or its management. It can also jeopardize a lawsuit pending in court, which is binding on all family members. He can also compromise on family debts and other transactions. The management aspect of the carta prescribes karta, the aspect of controlling his income and expenses, and if there is a surplus in the family accounts, he also has control of these accounts. If Karta has expenses with which other family members disagree, those members have the opportunity to request a share and Karta must appropriate its share, including the amount they deem inappropriate spent.
In Tara chand v. Reeb Ram concluded that, in view of the division of property, no coparcener can bring a complaint against him on the grounds that because of his greater family needs, a greater part of the amount of the joint family was spent on his own family. Karta has the power to alienate property, provided it is done by: « A Karta must act prudently; Prudence implies both prudence and foresight and excludes premature, reckless and arbitrary behavior, and such alienation on the part of Karta without the family purpose or necessity clause is null and void. Karta can make any compromise on issues related to the common family. The compromise reached may involve family debts and other related transactions. Such a compromise must not be malicious, otherwise it can be challenged during partition. A karta can even jeopardize a lawsuit pending in a court of law to which family members are related. However, in such a case, a minor may avail himself of the filing of a legal application, in accordance with Article 32, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Karta has the ability to give an individual for godly purposes due to fewer restrictions. It was stated in Guramma v. Mallapa that a father can give his daughter part of a property if she meets the criteria for suitability, taking into account the real estate owned by the family. However, it is unacceptable for a husband to give such property to his wife under the « pious ends » clause. For unmarried family members, Karta is responsible for their marriage, especially girls. The funds needed for marriage come from joint family property and can come from joint family funds. It can be seen that a mother can only act as a carta if the next carta is a minor and the child`s natural guardian is the mother. In a general sense, we see that a mother or another woman cannot become the karta of the Hindu undivided family. He can manage family affairs and affairs as he pleases. He can distinguish between family members or those to whom he can give property and those who do not receive a share. As the supreme head of the family, a carta has the power to take care of family affairs and family property. With regard to the case of Bhaskaran v. Bhaskaran, it has been noted that although the scope of a carta is limited in terms of alienating property, its powers in the management of family affairs are rather absolute. Karta has the ability to fully own the assets and be the beneficiary of HUF`s income, regardless of their source.
With regard to the question of whether minors can be karta, it was again stated in Narendra Kumar v. CIT that if the minor is the only one to leave, if he works under the supervision of a guardian. It should be noted that the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 (Section 21) recognizes the validity of a minor in a « leadership position » of a Hindu undivided family. Karta, the head of the family, has the power to administer and direct the Hindu undivided family. In Bhaskaran v. Bhaskaran has been found that the power of karta in terms of management is absolute. Karta`s powers are inherent and therefore no interference can be made even if he shows bias or favoritism towards a family member. The acts he committed cannot be called into question until they are deemed illegal or immoral. The most important thing of all is to gain the faith and trust of family members to properly maintain all actions. It is believed that the highest person in the family is recognized as the « kart » of the family. Every person in the next generation cannot be a karta of the family until the oldest man in the family is alive.