Supreme Court refers question on property rights of women under Hindu Succession Act to larger Bench

A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday referred a question concerning property rights conferred on Hindu women under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act to a larger Bench [Tej Bhan (D) Through LRs and Others v. Ram Kishan (D) Through LRs and Others]..The question revolves around the interplay of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In particular, it concerns the question of whether property bequeathed to a Hindu wife through a will by her husband would always confer her full ownership rights even if the will includes restrictions on the property rights so conferred. A Division Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta on Monday observed that a conclusive determination of this issue is necessary since there are conflicting interpretations of Section 14 and since it affects rights of Hindu women across India. "The issue is of utmost importance as it 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 Court observed. .The Division Bench, therefore, ordered that this matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to refer the case to a larger Bench of the Court. .Notably, Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act was introduced to tackle discriminatory customary laws and seeks to ensure that Hindu women have full ownership of property acquired by her. Section 14 (2), however, says that Section 14 (1) would not apply to property acquired by the Hindu woman through instruments (such as gift, will, a court decree etc) that confer restricted property rights. In 1977, the Supreme Court in in V Tulasamma & Others v. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by LRs reinforced the absolute ownership rights of Hindu women under Section 14 (1) by holding that property given to to a Hindu woman instead of pre-existing rights such as maintenance would fall under Section 14 (1) and not Section 14 (2). The Court added that this would be the case even if the instrument of transfer conferred only restricted rights (such as a condition that the property will revert to the earlier owner or his heirs after the death of the woman-transferee)..However on Monday, the Supreme Court noted that there are at least eighteen judgments which have differed with the view in Tulasamma's case."Almost four decades after the judgment in Tulsamma, we have two streams of thoughts. While the first applies principles in Tulsamma as an inviolable principle steadfastly holding that property possessed by a Hindu female before or after the commencement of the Act shall be held by her as a full owner. The other seems to be evolving from case to case, influenced by, i) the method and manner by which the Hindu female is possessed of the property, ii) the instrument through which the right is acquired, and iii) the time at which such possession takes place, to mention a few," the Court found. .The Court noted that judgments which disagreed with the view in Tulsamma refer to a 1972 three-judge Bench decision in Karmi v. Amru, which was not noticed by the Court in Tulasamma.In Karmi, the top court had observed that property inherited through wills would not fall under Section 14 (1). This meant that if a will bequeaths only limited property rights on Hindu women, the principle of full ownership under Section 14 (1) would not apply. In the 1994 ruling in Gumpha vs Jaibai, the Supreme Court supported and elaborated on this view, observing, "Parliament has never intended to confirm a higher right on a Hindu female, than what was enjoyed by a male Hindu ... when the law attempts to remove the disability imposed by customary Hindu law, it does not enlarge and exchange the right she will get under a will."In view of this conflict, the matter was referred to a larger Bench for a conclusive determination of the law..Case BackgroundThe case at hand dates back to 1965 when one Kanwar Bhan executed a will in favor of his wife. The will said that the wife was entitled to possess and reap the land's benefits for the entirety of her life, but that it would later revert to the husband's heirs after her (the wife's) death. The wife later sold the land to one Tej Bhan in March 1981. She presented herself as the full owner of the property.The son and grandson of Kanwar Bhan challenged the sale before a trial court.Placing reliance on Tulasamma, the trial court dismissed the suit. The trial court held that the wife's rights to the land would be absolute in view of Section 14 (1). The first appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court overturned the findings of both the courts below. The High Court held that the wife's rights on the land fell under Section 14 (2).Aggrieved, Tej Bhan (represented by his legal heirs) approached the apex court..Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta appeared for the appellants.Advocate Sunil K Mittal appeared for respondents..[Read Judgment]