In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court has decided to finally clear out the web of confusion formed over a period of almost six decades as a result of numerous interpretations in various judgements regarding the property rights of Hindu women provided under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
At present, the question before the Apex Court is if a Hindu wife has the right to inherit full ownership rights of the property bequeathed by her husband, even if a will imposes restrictions over such transfer.
A larger Bench was called by the bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, to finally decide such issue, which still has no straight answer even after no less than 20 different judgements in the last sixty years. The bench referred to question at hand as one which “affects the rights of every Hindu female, her larger family, and such claims and objections that may be pending consideration in almost all original and appellate courts across the length and breadth of the country.”
The judgement of the larger Bench would provide answers to the interpretation of Section 14 of the Act, hence affecting the rights of millions of Hindu women and would determine if they have the right to use, transfer or sell property without any interference.
Facts of the case:
- The present case starts back to almost 60 years, when in the 1965, Kanwar Bhan provided his wife with a piece of land for her lifetime, with a condition that the ownership of the land would revert back to his heirs after the death of the wife.
- A few years later, the lady sold the land, hence deeming herself as the owner of the land. A decision which was challenged by the son and the grandson of the purchaser of the land.
- The case was decided differently at different courts, thus, finally being presented at the Supreme Court.
- Deciding in the favour of the wife, the trial court and the appellate court based their judgement on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tulasamma v Sesha Reddy in the year 1977, where the Apex Court interpreted that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act ensures absolute ownership rights to hindu women.
- On the other hand, the Punjab and haryana High Court decided against the judgement of the lower courts, on the basis of an earlier Supreme Court judgement in the case of Karmi Vs Amru (1972), where it was held by the Apex Court that the rights of a woman could be limited based on specific restrictions mentioned in a will as provided under Section 14(2).
Section 14 (1) and Section (2)
- Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, could be referred to as a progressive step which was introduced with an objective of granting Hindu women complete ownership of such property they acquired “by whatever means”, whether it was before or after the Act came into existence.
- The Section was added with an intention to refer to the traditional practice where the females were allowed only a limited interest in the property.
- Section 14(2), on the other hand, provided for exceptions, where it was mentioned that such property which was gifted, willed or granted with certain specific conditions shall not automatically lead to an absolute ownership.
- This contradiction in the two provisions has lead to decades long debate amongst the judiciary.
Observation by the Bench
- The contradiction amongst the two provisions has been acknowledged by Justice Narasimha, who observed that since the judgement of Tulasamma case, “two streams of thought” have evolved, one which advocates an unwavering empowerment of Hindu women, while the other which focuses more on the facts of the cases where the method of transfer of property is of foremost concern.
- Hence, the Bench referred for a higher Bench in the Supreme Court, as “There must be clarity and certainty in the position of law that would govern proprietary interests of parties involving interpretation of Section 14.”
- The judges, who counted 18 previous precedents with conflicting decisions after the cases of Tulasamma and Karmi, observed that a state of confusion has now left the rights of Hindu women in jeopardy.
- The Bench also referred to the case of Gumpha v Jaibai (1994), where the precedent of Karmi case was followed, deciding that property which has been inherited through will can carry limitations as mentioned in the will.
- Also, the above mentioned 1994 judgement mentioned that the law did not intend for the Hindu women to enjoy greater rights than rights enjoyed by the men, thus further complicating the intent of Section 14(1).
Finally, the larger bench would have to deal with these differing views, and deciding if the conditions mentioned in the will or gift supersede the rights of a Hindu woman to have complete ownership rights over the said property as provided under Section 14(1).
To know further developments of the case or to talk to a lawyer or seek free legal counsel for matters related to property rights or transfer of property, etc, you may contact us at Sharks of Law.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
