The Mitakshara school of family law consists of various rules and regulations regarding the aspects of succession. Under this school, it is presumed that there is the existence of a Joint Hindu Family, and all the members of such a family acquire their membership in the family through the way of birth, exceptions being adoption and marriage. 

As far as succession is concerned, the Mitakshara school of Hindu law consists or follows two concepts known as Co-Parcenory and Kartaship. The traditional Mitakshara rules of succession restricted these concepts to only the male members of the family, i.e., co-parcenory, which implied acquiring a right to receive a share in the family property, could only be acquired by male members. Similarly, Kartaship was provided to the eldest male member of the family such that he was required to act as the head of the family, acquiring rights to take the major family decisions, to maintain the family, to represent etc. 

These traditional concepts of co-parcenory and Kartaship however have evolved over time, all thanks to the codification of the Hindu law, leading to the development of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. These acts have recognised the role of women within the family, and therefore have attempted to and provided the women within such families the right to acquire the share within the family property as well as the right to become the heads of the family. 

The case of Mrs. Sujata Sharma v. Shri Manu Gupta has reiterated this effect of the provisions laid down under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, wherein the court has recognised the same and therefore affirmed the fact that females within the family have the power to acquire the right of holding the power of being Karta of the family. With the help of the previous judgments provided by the court, for example in the case of Tribhovan Das Haribai Tamboli v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal & Ors. it has been clearly held, that irrespective of whether it is a female or male, if the individual is the eldest member of the family, such individual can hold the position of a Karta, no matter what. 

In the given case, the defendant tried to establish the fact that simply because the females get equal rights to acquire share in the family property, that does not mean that they also acquire the right of Kartaship. However the court explicitly explained and affirmed that since the women within the family are acquiring equal rights to obtain a certain share in the family property, they therefore stand on an equal footing as the sons and therefore become qualified to hold the position of a co-parcenor which implies that just like how the sons, who are co-parcenors may become the Karta on being the eldest member within the family, then the same principle can be applied to the women too, and can be hold the position of a Karta. 

Thus the case of Mrs. Sujata Sharma v. Shri Manu Gupta can be considered to be a landmark judg- ment, decided by the judiciary leading to the re-affirmation of the provisions which have been laid down under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 providing and clarifying that the females within a Hindu Undivided Family, if the eldest member of the family, can be considered to be the Karta of the family, acquiring the rights and liabilities of that of the head of the family.