A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case pertains to the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically regarding whether a Hindu female acquires an absolute or limited estate when property is bequeathed to her via a testamentary disposition. The judgment scrutinizes previous conflicting decisions regarding the interplay between sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 14, particularly in cases where a female Hindu receives property through a will, gift, or other instruments.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the divergence in judicial interpretation on this issue, noting that two separate streams of thought exist—one derived from V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. Sesha Reddy (1977), which expands a Hindu female’s estate under Section 14(1), and another from Karmi v. Amru (1972) and Gumpha v. Jaibal (1994), which interprets Section 14(2) as an exception allowing restrictions on the estate. Recognizing the conflicting precedents, the Court referred the matter to a larger bench for resolution, emphasizing the need for clarity and certainty in Hindu women’s property rights.

Keywords:

Hindu Succession Act, Section 14, Limited Estate, Absolute Ownership, Life Estate, Testamentary Succession, Judicial Conflict.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title
Tej Bhan (D) Through Lr. & Ors. v. Ram Kishan (D) Through Lrs. & Ors.

ii) Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 6557 of 2022

iii) Judgment Date
09 December 2024

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta

vi) Author
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

vii) Citation
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 500 : 2024 INSC 945

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
• Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
• Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) – Sections 18, 21, 22, 27, 28

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any)
No previous judgments explicitly overruled, but conflicting precedents identified.

x) Case Related to:
Hindu Succession Law, Women’s Property Rights, Testamentary Succession, Family Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

This case revolves around a Hindu female’s right to absolute ownership of property bequeathed under a will, particularly when such a will imposes restrictions on her estate. The primary question is whether such a disposition transforms into full ownership under Section 14(1) or remains restricted under Section 14(2).

Over the years, the Supreme Court has provided conflicting interpretations, with some decisions (like Tulasamma) holding that property given in lieu of maintenance becomes absolute, while others (like Karmi and Gumpha) uphold the validity of restricted estates if specified in the will. Given the inconsistencies, the present case was referred to a larger bench for resolution.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant purchased a property from the wife of Kanwar Bhan (original owner). The respondents (legal heirs of Kanwar Bhan) challenged the sale, arguing that the wife only had a life estate as per her husband’s will dated 03.03.1965, which prohibited her from selling the property.

• Will’s terms: It granted the wife a life estate over specific properties for her maintenance, while absolute ownership was given to her son and grandsons.
• Trial Court’s ruling: The wife’s limited estate enlarged into absolute ownership under Section 14(1), allowing her to sell the property.
• High Court’s reversal: It followed Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike (2006), ruling that Section 14(2) applied, meaning the wife could not sell the property.
• Supreme Court’s concern: Given the conflicting interpretations in past judgments, the Court decided to refer the issue to a larger bench.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether a Hindu female’s property acquired under a will should be governed by Section 14(1) or 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act.

ii) Whether a life estate granted under a will for maintenance transforms into absolute ownership under Section 14(1).

iii) Whether previous conflicting decisions (Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy vs. Karmi v. Amru) need reconciliation by a larger bench.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, argued:

1. The wife had a pre-existing right to maintenance, and the will merely recognized that right, making Section 14(1) applicable, as per Tulasamma (1977).
2. The High Court wrongly relied on Karmi and Sadhu Singh, which contradict Tulasamma.
3. Other Supreme Court precedents (Gulwant Kaur v. Mohinder Singh, Thota Sesharathamma, Masilamani Mudaliar) support absolute ownership under Section 14(1).

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The respondents’ counsel, Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, countered:

1. The will explicitly restricted the wife’s rights, making Section 14(2) applicable.
2. Karmi (1972) and Bhura (1994) were three-judge bench decisions, making them binding precedents.
3. The Supreme Court has upheld restricted estates in several cases, e.g., Gumpha v. Jaibal (1994), Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike (2006).

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

• The Court acknowledged conflicting precedents and found that judicial interpretations of Section 14 lacked uniformity.
• Given the far-reaching impact of the issue on Hindu women’s rights, the Court held that a larger bench must resolve the conflict.

b. Obiter Dicta

• The Court observed that Tulasamma had not explicitly overruled Karmi, leading to two streams of interpretation.
• It stressed that judicial clarity was essential for property rights of Hindu women.

c. Guidelines Issued

• The Registry was directed to place the case before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger bench to:
  1. Reconcile conflicting decisions.
  2. Clarify the interplay between Section 14(1) and 14(2).
  3. Restate the law on Hindu women’s property rights.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment highlights the judicial uncertainty regarding Hindu women’s rights over property acquired through testamentary succession. By referring the issue to a larger bench, the Supreme Court has taken a progressive step to ensure consistency and clarity in interpreting Section 14.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy (1977) 3 SCC 99
2. Karmi v. Amru (1972) 4 SCC 86
3. Thota Sesharathamma v. Thota Manikyamma (1991) 4 SCC 312
4. Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike (2006) 8 SCC 75
5. Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami (1996) 8 SCC 525