Supreme Court to Reconcile Conflicting Views on Hindu Women’s Property Rights: Tej Bhan vs Ram Kishan (2024)

Date of the Judgment: December 09, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 945

Judges: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Can the property rights of a Hindu woman be restricted if she receives property through a will that specifies a limited estate? The Supreme Court of India is currently dealing with this complex question, which involves conflicting interpretations of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This case arises from a dispute over property rights, highlighting the confusion caused by differing judicial opinions on whether a Hindu woman’s property rights can be limited by the terms of a will or if she automatically becomes the full owner of the property. The bench, consisting of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta, has referred the matter to a larger bench to resolve these inconsistencies.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute originating from a will. Kanwar Bhan, the original owner of the property, executed a will on March 3, 1965, bequeathing a life estate to his wife, Lachhmi Bai. The will specified that Lachhmi Bai could use the property for her maintenance but could not sell or mortgage it. Upon her death, the property was to be divided between Kanwar Bhan’s son, Mool Chand, and his grandsons, Ram Kishan and Nand Lal.

Kanwar Bhan passed away on October 11, 1965. Subsequently, on March 2, 1981, Lachhmi Bai sold the property to Tej Bhan. This sale led to a lawsuit filed by Ram Kishan and Nand Lal, who sought a declaration that the sale was void and demanded possession of the property.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, in its judgment on January 31, 1986, dismissed the suit, citing the principles established in V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by L Rs., holding that the property given to Lachhmi Bai was for maintenance and thus, she became the full owner. The Trial Court rejected the argument that Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act applied and also rejected the applicability of the judgment in Karmi v. Amru.

The First Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, also relying on Tulasamma and rejecting the arguments based on Karmi. However, the High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, concluding that the principles in Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike & Ors were applicable.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which deals with the property rights of Hindu women. The section states:

“Sec 14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.— (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
Explanation.—In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.”

Section 14(1) essentially grants full ownership rights to Hindu women over any property they possess, while Section 14(2) provides an exception, stating that if a woman acquires property through a will, gift, or other instrument that specifies a restricted estate, she is bound by that restriction. The conflict arises from differing interpretations of these two sub-sections, particularly when property is given to a woman in lieu of maintenance.

Arguments

Appellant’s (Tej Bhan) Arguments:

• Mr. Dhruv Mehta, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, argued that the High Court’s reliance on Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike & Ors was incorrect and that the principles laid down in Tulsamma should prevail.
• He contended that the property given to Lachhmi Bai was in the nature of maintenance, and therefore, her pre-existing right should enlarge into full ownership.
• He cited several decisions, including Gulwant Kaur v. Mohinder Singh, Thota Sesharathamma v. Thota Manikyamma, Balwant Kaur v. Chanan Singh & Ors., Shakuntala Devi v. Kamla, Jupudy Pardha Sarathy v. Pentapati Rama Krishna, and V. Kalyanaswamy v. L. Bakthavatsalam, to support his claim.

Respondent’s (Ram Kishan) Arguments:

• Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, the learned counsel for the respondents, argued that the decision in Karmi v. Amru, a three-judge bench decision, had not been overruled and should be followed.
• He submitted that the disposition of property to Lachhmi Bai fell under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, as the will created a restricted estate.
• He argued that Karmi was followed in Bhura and Ors. v. Kashiram, which clarified the interplay between sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 14.
• He also relied on Sadhu Singh, which the High Court had cited, and other cases like Gaddam Ramakrishnareddy and Ors. v. Gaddam Ramireddy and Anr., Jagan Singh (Dead) through L Rs. v. Dhanwanti and Anr., Shivdev Kaur (Dead) by L Rs. and Ors. v. RS Grewal, Ranvir Dewan v. Rashmi Khanna and Anr., and Jogi Ram v. Suresh Kumar and Ors.

The core of the dispute lies in whether the life estate granted to Lachhmi Bai under the will is a restriction under Section 14(2) or whether it should be seen as a form of maintenance, which would then fall under Section 14(1), granting her full ownership. The arguments highlight the differing interpretations of the law and the precedents.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this order. However, the core issue before the court is the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically:

• The interplay between sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14.
• Whether a Hindu woman’s right to property acquired through a will can be restricted by the terms of the will, or if it automatically becomes absolute under Section 14(1).
• Whether property given in lieu of maintenance should be treated differently from other forms of acquisition.
• The conflict between the principles laid down in Tulsamma and those in Karmi and subsequent cases.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

• Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Deals with the property rights of Hindu women, stating that any property possessed by a female Hindu shall be held by her as a full owner, with certain exceptions under sub-section (2).
• Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act: Entitles a Hindu wife to be maintained by her husband.
• Section 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act: Defines a widow as a dependant.
• Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act: Obligates the heirs of a deceased Hindu to maintain the dependants of the deceased.
• Section 27 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act: Specifies that a dependant’s claim for maintenance is not a charge on the estate of the deceased unless specified.
• Section 28 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act: Provides that a dependant’s right to receive maintenance can be enforced against a transferee of the property.
• Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Affirms the right of a Hindu to dispose of his property by will.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court noted that V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by L Rs. [ (1977) 3 SCC 99 ] established the principle that property given for maintenance should grant full ownership but acknowledged that subsequent judgments have created inconsistencies.
• The Court recognized that Karmi v. Amru [ (1972) 4 SCC 86 ] held that a life estate does not become an absolute estate but that it has not been overruled, contributing to the confusion.
• The Court acknowledged that Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike & Ors [ (2006) 8 SCC 75 ] held that restrictions on a devise apply, but that this view conflicts with Tulsamma.
• The Court noted that several cases, such as Gulwant Kaur v. Mohinder Singh [ (1987) 3 SCC 674 ], Thota Sesharathamma v. Thota Manikyamma [ (1991) 4 SCC 312 ], Balwant Kaur v. Chanan Singh & Ors [ (2000) 6 SCC 310 ], Shakuntala Devi v. Kamla [ (2005) 5 SCC 390 ], Jupudy Pardha Sarathy v. Pentapati Rama Krishna [ (2016) 2 SCC 56 ], and V. Kalyanaswamy v. L. Bakthavatsalam [ (2021) 16 SCC 543 ], have followed Tulsamma, while others have followed Karmi, leading to a divergence in judicial opinion.
• The Court observed that Bhura and Ors. v. Kashiram [ (1994) 2 SCC 111 ] followed Karmi, further solidifying the alternate line of reasoning.
• The Court noted that C. Masilamani Mudaliar and Ors. v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirukoil and Ors [ (1996) 8 SCC 525 ] identified a discordant note in Gumpha v. Jaibai, which had formulated principles contrary to Tulsamma.
• The Court acknowledged that cases like Gaddam Ramakrishnareddy and Ors. v. Gaddam Ramireddy and Anr [ (2010) 9 SCC 602 ], Jagan Singh (Dead) through L Rs. v. Dhanwanti and Anr [ (2012) 2 SCC 628 ], Shivdev Kaur (Dead) by L Rs. and Ors. v. RS Grewal [ (2013) 4 SCC 636 ], Ranvir Dewan v. Rashmi Khanna and Anr [ (2018) 12 SCC 1 ], and Jogi Ram v. Suresh Kumar and Ors [ (2022) 4 SCC 274 ], have adopted the same line as Karmi, creating a parallel stream of thought.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the matter to a larger bench was primarily driven by the following factors:

• Inconsistencies in Precedents: The Court recognized the existence of two distinct streams of thought regarding the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. One stream, rooted in Tulsamma, supports the idea that property given to a Hindu woman for maintenance grants her full ownership, while the other, originating from Karmi, holds that a life estate under a will remains restricted.
• Need for Clarity and Certainty: The Court emphasized the necessity for clarity and certainty in the law, particularly concerning property rights, to guide litigants and lower courts effectively. The conflicting interpretations have led to a “chaotic” situation, robbing the law of its certainty.
• Impact on Hindu Women: The Court acknowledged that the issue affects the rights of every Hindu woman, her family, and numerous pending cases across the country, making it imperative to resolve the legal ambiguities.
• Limitations of a Two-Judge Bench: The Court, being a two-judge bench, recognized that it could not reconcile the conflicting decisions of multiple three-judge benches. Therefore, a larger bench was deemed necessary to address the issue comprehensively.
• Statutory Interpretation: The Court noted that the differing interpretations stem from varying approaches to statutory construction, particularly the interplay between Section 14(1) and 14(2), and the extent to which a will can restrict a Hindu woman’s property rights.

The Court’s primary concern was to resolve the legal confusion and provide a clear and consistent interpretation of Section 14, which would ensure uniform application of the law across all courts.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Ratio

The Supreme Court did not lay down a ratio decidendi in the traditional sense, as the case was referred to a larger bench. However, the key ratio of the Court’s decision is:

Ratio: The matter is referred to a larger bench due to irreconcilable inconsistencies in the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly regarding the interplay between sub-sections (1) and (2) and the conflicting views on whether a Hindu woman’s property rights can be restricted by a will or if she automatically becomes the full owner of the property. This conflict arises from the differing principles laid down in V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by L Rs. and Karmi v. Amru and subsequent cases.

Ratio Table:

Flowchart:

Outcome and Implications

Outcome: The Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench to resolve the conflicting interpretations of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The case remains pending before the larger bench.

Implications:

• Legal Uncertainty: The case highlights the ongoing legal uncertainty surrounding the property rights of Hindu women, particularly when property is acquired through a will or other instrument that specifies a limited estate.
• Need for Clarity: The referral to a larger bench underscores the need for a clear and consistent interpretation of Section 14 to avoid further confusion and litigation.
• Impact on Hindu Women: The outcome of the larger bench’s decision will have significant implications for the property rights of Hindu women across the country.
• Precedent Setting: The larger bench’s decision will set a precedent for future cases involving similar issues, ensuring uniformity in the application of the law.
• Pending Cases: The decision will likely affect numerous pending cases in various courts, which are awaiting clarity on the interpretation of Section 14.

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the matter to a larger bench underscores the complexity and significance of the legal issues involved. The final outcome will have far-reaching implications for Hindu women’s property rights and the interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.