S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. ( 1 ) SINCE common questions of fact and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) IN these writ petitions, petitioner has challenged the interim order dated 2-4-2007 passed in O. S. Nos. 157, 158, 159, 160, 162 and 163/2006 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn. ). , Bellary. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is the second defendant in the aforesaid suits. First respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the first defendant. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suits for a declaration that it is the landlord of the suit schedule premises and to pass a decree of eviction against the first defendant from the schedule premisses. Alternatively, the plaintiff has sought for a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant, his men, agents, servants, assignees, etc. , to continuously pay the monthly rents to the plaintiff from the date of suits till he vacates the premises in question. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the property is owned by Joint hindu Family firm of Jantakal Gadilingappa and Brothers, represented by its kartha-J. Rajashekar. The second defendant has entered appearance and filed his written statement. According to him, his father J. Rachappa was managing the affairs of the Joint Hindu Family and after his death, he has been managing and looking after the welfare of the joint family and its members and joint family properties. It is further contended that the shopping complex in question was constructed by him and that he is entitled for the rents. On the basis of the pleadings, the Court below has framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff joint family is the landlord of defendant no. 1 and J. Rajashekar is its kartha? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of the suit property by evicting defendant No. 1? or in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled for rents from the date of suit till the vacation of suit property? 3. Whether the suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is correct? 4. Whether the defendant No. 2 proves that, the suit is bad for non-joinder of all the joint family members? 5. Whether the termination of tenancy is proper? 6. 3. Whether the suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is correct? 4. Whether the defendant No. 2 proves that, the suit is bad for non-joinder of all the joint family members? 5. Whether the termination of tenancy is proper? 6. What decree or order?" ( 5 ) THE Court below has treated issue Nos. 3 and 4 as preliminary issues and passed common order on the said issues. There is no challenge to the order passed by the trial Court on issue No. 3. On issue No. 4, the court below has held that suit is not bad for non-joinder of all the joint family members. Incidentally, it has answered a part of issue No. l as to the karthaship of the joint Hindu family which was necessary to decide issue No. 4. The challenge in this writ petition is with regard to the order of the trial Court holding that J. Rajashekar as the kartha of Joint Hindu family. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court below was not justified in holding that J. Rajashekar was the kartha of the family. It is contended that earlier his father J. Rachappa was managing the affairs of the family and after his death, petitioner is managing the affairs of the family. During the pendency of the proceedings, five of the members of the joint family have filed an affidavit stating that the second defendant (J. Veerabhadrappa) is managing the family properties. The Court below is not justified in treating issue No. 4 as a preliminary issue as it involves disputed question of law and fact and the same has to be tried along with the other issues. Alternatively, it is contended that the Court below has decided a portion of issue No. 1, which was not treated as a preliminary issue. He has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Shree Ram Bohra and Others, AIR 1965 SC 1531 in support of his contention. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that Sri Rachappa was the senior member and kartha of the family and after his death, J. Rajashekar is the seniormost male member in the family. Therefore, he has automatically become the kartha of the family after the death of J. Rachappa. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that Sri Rachappa was the senior member and kartha of the family and after his death, J. Rajashekar is the seniormost male member in the family. Therefore, he has automatically become the kartha of the family after the death of J. Rachappa. J. Veerabhadrappa the petitioner herein is only a coparcener of the Joint Hindu Family. All the members of the family have not filed affidavit in favour of J. Veerabhadrappa stating that he is managing the properties of the family. Even otherwise, J. Veerabhadrappa being a junior member of the family cannot be treated as kartha of the family. ( 8 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the question to be decided in these cases is whether the Court below is justified in holding that J. Rajashekar is the kartha of the Joint Hindu Family? ( 9 ) IN Mulla's Principles of Hindu Law (17th Edition at page 362), it is stated that so long as the members of a family remain undivided, the senior member of the family is entitled to manage the family properties; including even charitable properties; and is presumed to be the managar until the contrary is shown. It has been further stated that the senior member may give up his right of management and a junior member may be appointed as a Manager. In Mayne's Hindu Law and Usage (12th Edition at page 569), it is stated that the position of a karta which is acquired by birth and regulated by seniority, subject to his capacity to act, is terminable either by resignation or relinquishment and is not indefeasible. In Hindu law, Principles and Precedents by N. R. Raghavachariar (4th Edition, at page 275) it is stated that so long as the members of a joint family remain undivided, the senior member of the family is entitled to manage the family properties, and the father and in his absence, the next senior most male member of the family is its manager provided he is not incapacitated from acting as such by illness or other sufficient cause. In the absence of father, or if he resigns, the management of the family property devolves upon the eldest male member of the family, provided he is not wanting in the necessary capacity to manage it. In the absence of father, or if he resigns, the management of the family property devolves upon the eldest male member of the family, provided he is not wanting in the necessary capacity to manage it. ( 10 ) IN Shree Ram Bohra's case (supra), the Apex Court has held that two persons may look after the affairs of a Joint Hindu Family. This authority is not derived under any principles of Hindu Laws but based on the members of the Joint Hindu Family conferring with authority on them. When two such representatives sue and obtain a decree in their favour for the benefit of the family and an appeal is filed against both of them as representing them, the karta of the family in accordance with the principles of Hindu Law, will automatically be the person entitled to represent the joint Hindu family till such time that the family decides to confer the authority on specified members of the Joint Hindu Family to represent it. In Narendrakumar J. Modi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat II, ahmedabad, AIR 1976 SC 1953 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a senior member may give up his right and a junior member of the family can act as the karta with consent of all the other members. ( 11 ) FROM the discussions made above, it is clear that the position of karta is acquired by birth, regulated by seniority, subject to his capacity to act, is terminable either by resignation or relinquishment. On the death of karta, the next seniormost member of the family will automatically be the karta till such time that the family decides to confer the authority on specified member of the joint Hindu Family to represent it. A senior member may also give up his right and a junior member of the family can act as karta with the consent of all the other members. ( 12 ) ADMITTEDLY, J. Rajashekar is the seniormost male member of the plaintiffs Joint Family. There is no material on record to show that any other junior member of the family is declared or recognised as a karta of the family. Admittedly there are seven members in the family. Five members have filed an affidavit stating that J. Veerabhadrappa is looking after the business of the family. There is no material on record to show that any other junior member of the family is declared or recognised as a karta of the family. Admittedly there are seven members in the family. Five members have filed an affidavit stating that J. Veerabhadrappa is looking after the business of the family. They have not given their consent in favour of J. Veerabhadrappa to act as the Manager or the Karta of the family. Even otherwise, two other members have filed affidavit in favour of J. Rajashekar. Therefore, there is no unanimity amongst the members of the family in favour of J. Veerabhadrappa. In the circumstances, J. Rajashekar should be recognised as Karta of the Joint Hindu Family as he is the seniormost male member of the family. ( 13 ) THE second defendant has taken a specific plea that suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties as all the joint family members are necessary and proper parties to the suit. Therefore, the Court below has framed issue No. 4. This issue has a bearing on the maintainability of the suit Therefore, there is no illegality whatsoever in deciding the said issue as preliminary issue. However, to decide this issue, a finding is also necessary as to who is the karta of the joint Hindu family because if a suit is field by a joint Hindu family represented by its karta, other members need not be arrayed as parties to the suit as the suit is not for partition of family properties. Therefore, the Court below was right in deciding the question relating to the karta of the family along with issue no. 4. There is no merit in the contention that issue No. 4 should have been decided along with other issues. ( 14 ) HAVING given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsel made at the bar, I am of the view that there is no merit in this writ petition. In the result, writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.