Hindu Succession Act | Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench Conflicting Opinions On Female Hindu's Rights Under S.14

The Supreme Court on Monday (Dec. 9) highlighted the inconsistencies and conflicting interpretations surrounding the interplay between Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA”) which deals with the rights of Hindu females in property inherited or possessed by them.The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta dealt with the inconsistencies occurred in the judicial precedents where one line of precedents advances the cause of the female Hindu, recognizing her absolute right to ownership over the property received by her in recognition of her pre-existing right in the property under Section 14(1) of the HSA, and on the contrary, another line of precedents, basing its reliance on Section 14(2) of the HSA, do not recognizes her absolute ownership over the property received in recognition of her pre-existing right unless the property received by her was before or at the time of the enactment of HSA. The lead precedent that advanced the female Hindu cause was V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by LRs (1977) and was followed in a number of other precedents such as Gulwant Kaur v. Mohinder Singh (1987), Thota Sesharathamma v. Thota Manikyamma (1991), Balwant Kaur v. Chanan Singh & Ors. (2000), Shakuntala Devi v. Kamla (2005), Jupudy Pardha Sarathy v. Pentapati Rama Krishna (2016) and V. Kalyanaswamy v. L. Bakthavatsalam (2020). Whereas, the lead precedent that restricts the right of female Hindu to hold property was Karmi v. Amru (1972) and was followed in several other precedents such as Bhura and Ors. v. Kashiram (1994), Gumpha v. Jaibai (1994), and Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike & Ors (2006). In V. Tulasamma's case, the Court observed that both Section 14(1) and 14(2) operate in their respective fields, and the exceptions carved out under Sub-clause (2) cannot be construed in a manner to destroy the effect of the main provision or the protection granted by sub-clause (1) or in a way to become totally inconsistent with the main provision. The Court clarified that sub-clause (2) would be in operation only when an independent right, interest in created in female Hindu favor for the first time and has no application where the instrument concerned merely seeks to confirm, endorse, declare or recognise pre-existing rights enshrined under sub-clause (1). “Sub-section (2) of s. 14 applies to instruments, decrees, awards, gifts etc. which create independent and new titles in favour of the females for the first time and has no application where the instrument concerned merely seeks to confirm, endorse, declare or recognise pre-existing rights. In such cases a restricted estate in favour of a female is legally permissible and s. 14(1) will not operate in this sphere. Where, however, an instrument merely declares or recognises a pre-existing right, such as a claim to maintenance or partition or share to which the female is entitled, the sub-section has absolutely no application and the female's limited interest would automatically be enlarged into an absolute one by force of s. 14(1) and the restrictions placed, if any, under the document would have to be ignored. Thus where a property is allotted or transferred to a female in lieu of maintenance or a share at partition, the instrument is taken out of the ambit of subsection (2) and would be governed by s. 14(1) despite any restrictions placed on the powers of the transferee.”, the court observed in V. Tulasamma's case. Whereas, the Court in Sadhu Singh's case placing reliance on Karmi v. Amru laid down the essential ingredients for determining the application of s.14(1) such as: - antecedents of the property, the possession of the property as on the date of the Act and the existence of a right in the female over it, however, limited it may be. In Sadhu Singh's case, the Court said that “any acquisition of possession of property (not right) by a female Hindu after the coming into force of the Act, cannot normally attract Section 14(1) of the Act. It would depend on the nature of the right acquired by her. If she takes it as an heir under the Act, she takes it absolutely. If while getting possession of the property after the Act, under a devise, gift or other transaction, any restriction is placed on her right, the restriction will have play in view of Section 14(2) of the Act.” Considering the fact that an authoritative ruling is required to provide clarity and certainty in the interpretation of Section 14 of the Act, the Court directed the Registry to place the Court's “order along with the appeal paper book before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate larger bench for reconciling the principles laid down in various judgments of this Court and for restating the law on the interplay between sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.” Background One, Kanwar Bhan executed a Will in his Wife's favour. After her husband's death, the Wife transferred the...

Hindu Succession Act | Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench Conflicting Opinions On Female Hindu's Rights Under S.14

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Hindu Succession Act | Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench Conflicting Opinions On Female Hindu's Rights Under S.14

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers