In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court made the decision to finally dispel the tangle of misunderstandings that had developed over nearly 60 years due to multiple interpretations in different rulings concerning Hindu women’s property rights under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The Apex Court is now debating whether a Hindu wife can inherit the whole ownership rights of the property her husband has left behind, even if a will places restrictions on the transfer.
The bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta summoned a larger bench to make a final decision on this matter, which has yet to be resolved despite at least 20 such rulings over the past 60 years. According to the bench, the issue at hand “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.”
Millions of Hindu women’s rights would be impacted by the ruling of the bigger Bench, which would clarify how Section 14 of the Act should be interpreted and decide whether or not they had the freedom to use, transfer, or sell property without hindrance.
issue facts:
• The current issue dates back over 60 years, to 1965, when Kanwar Bhan gave his wife a plot of land for her lifetime, with the understanding that the land would pass back to his heirs upon the wife’s passing.
• The woman declared herself the land’s owner after selling it a few years later. The son and grandchildren of the land buyer contested this ruling.
• The case was ultimately brought to the Supreme Court after being determined differently by other courts.
• The Hon. Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1977 case of Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy, in which the Apex Court interpreted that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act ensures absolute ownership rights to Hindu women, served as the foundation for the trial and appellate courts’ decisions in favor of the wife.
• However, based on a previous Supreme Court ruling in the Karmi v. Amru (1972) case, where the Apex Court held that a woman’s rights could be restricted based on specific restrictions mentioned in a will as provided under Section 14(2), the Punjab and Haryana High Court decided against the lower courts’ ruling.
Section 14 (1) and Section (2)
• The Hindu Succession Act’s Sections 14(1) and (2) could be considered a progressive step that was implemented with the intention of giving Hindu women full ownership of any property they acquired “by whatever means,” whether those means were prior to or subsequent to the Act’s creation.
• The purpose of adding the section was to allude to the custom of granting women just a restricted interest in the land.
• On the other hand, Section 14(2) allowed for exceptions, stating that property that was given, bequeathed, or granted subject to specified restrictions would not necessarily result in absolute possession.
• The judiciary has been debating this conflict in the two provisions for decades.
Bench Observation
• Justice Narasimha acknowledged the contradiction between the two provisions, noting that since the Tulasamma case ruling, “two streams of thought” have emerged, one of which supports the unwavering empowerment of Hindu women and the other of which concentrates more on the facts of cases where the method of property transfer is of utmost importance.
• Because “there must be clarity and certainty in the position of law that would govern proprietary interests of parties involving interpretation of Section 14,” the Bench referred the matter to a higher Bench of the Supreme Court.
• The judges noted that a situation of confusion has now put the rights of Hindu women in peril, citing 18 prior precedents with contradictory rulings following the cases of Tulasamma and Karmi.
• The Bench also cited the Gumpha v. Jaibai (1994) case, in which the Karmi case precedent was followed and it was determined that property inherited through a will may be subject to restrictions specified in the will.
• Additionally, the 1994 ruling noted above stated that the law did not intend for Hindu women to have more rights than men, which further muddies the meaning of Section 14(1).
Ultimately, the bigger bench would have to resolve these conflicting opinions and determine whether the terms of the will or gift take precedence over a Hindu woman’s entitlement to full ownership of the land in question as stipulated in Section 14(1).
You can get in touch with Sharks of Law to find out more about the case’s progress, speak with an attorney, or get free legal advice on issues pertaining to property rights, property transfers, etc.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
https://www.sharksoflaw.com/blog-detail/hindu-females-can-inherit-full-ownership-rights-to-their-husbands-property-sc-to-decide