Facts:
The appeal concerns the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically the interplay between subsections (1) and (2). The case stems from a dispute over property bequeathed to the wife of Kanwar Bhan under a will dated March 3, 1965. The will created a life estate for the wife with restrictions on alienation. After the death of the testator in 1965, the wife executed a sale deed in 1981 in favor of the appellants. The respondents, as descendants of the testator, filed a suit seeking a declaration that the sale was void and possession of the property. Conflicting precedents on the interpretation of Section 14(1) and (2) complicated the case.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellants contended that the property given to the wife under the will recognized her pre-existing right to maintenance, which was expanded into absolute ownership by Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. They relied on the principles laid down in V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy and subsequent judgments, asserting that the trial court and appellate court correctly applied the law.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents argued that the property was acquired under a will, and the terms of the will prescribed a restricted estate. They relied on precedents like Karmi v. Amru and Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike, claiming that Section 14(2) applied, which preserved the restricted estate under the will. The respondents contended that the High Court correctly interpreted the law.
Issues:
- Whether Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act applies to the property acquired by the wife under the will.
- Whether the life estate granted to the wife under the will enlarges into absolute ownership under Section 14(1).
- Whether the terms of the will prescribing restrictions override the provisions of Section 14(1).
Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court:
The Court noted that the conflicting interpretations of Section 14(1) and (2) had led to divergent judgments over decades. While Tulasamma emphasized the enlargement of restricted estates into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) for pre-existing rights, cases like Karmi and Sadhu Singh interpreted Section 14(2) to uphold restrictions in testamentary instruments. The Court acknowledged the need to reconcile these inconsistencies to provide clarity and certainty in the law.
Principle of the Case:
The principle revolves around balancing the rights of Hindu women to property with restrictions imposed through testamentary instruments. Section 14(1) aims to empower women by converting limited rights into absolute ownership, but Section 14(2) preserves restrictions where the property is acquired for the first time under an instrument prescribing limited right.
Final Order:
The Supreme Court, recognizing the critical need for consistency, directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for reference to a larger bench to reconcile conflicting judgments and restate the law governing Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. No final determination on the merits was made in this appeal.
Impact on Public Law and Order:
This case highlights the complexities in inheritance laws and the importance of legislative clarity in promoting gender equity. A definitive ruling by a larger bench will resolve longstanding ambiguities, reducing litigation and fostering fairness in property rights, particularly for Hindu women. It underscores the judiciary’s role in interpreting statutes to uphold social justice and legal certainty.
Case Citation: Supreme Court of India, Tej Bhan (D) Through LRs & Ors. v. Ram Kishan (D) Through LRs & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6557 of 2022, Decided on December 9, 2024.
