1. Dispute over validity of sale deed executed by a widow regarding property bequeathed as a life estate under a will — Interpretation of Section 14, Hindu Succession Act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1154
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Tej Bhan (D) Through Lr. & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Ram Kishan (D) Through Lrs. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6557 of 2022
Decided On : 09-12-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sachin Jain, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Adv. Mr. Vishal, Adv. Mrs. Subhadra Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sunil Kr Mittal, Adv. Mr. Anshul Mittal, Adv. Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Adv. Mr. Sameer Dawar, Adv. Mr. Harshit Vashisht, Adv. Mr. Archit Upadhayay, AOR Mr. Avinash Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Khushi Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Tagra, Adv. Mr. Shivdeep Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Lakshay Seth, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sachin Jain, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Adv. Mr. Vishal, Adv. Mrs. Subhadra Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sunil Kr Mittal, Adv. Mr. Anshul Mittal, Adv. Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Adv. Mr. Sameer Dawar, Adv. Mr. Harshit Vashisht, Adv. Mr. Archit Upadhayay, AOR Mr. Avinash Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Khushi Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Tagra, Adv. Mr. Shivdeep Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Lakshay Seth, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Hindu female’s right to maintenance is not an empty formality or an illusory claim being conceded as a matter of grace and generosity, but is a tangible right against property which flows from spiritual relationship between husband and wife.
(2) Possession of widow must be under some vestige of a claim, right or title, because Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not contemplate possession of any trespasser without any right or title.
Headnote:
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14 – Right to maintenance – Hindu female’s right to maintenance is not an empty formality or an illusory claim being conceded as a matter of grace and generosity, but is a tangible right against property which flows from spiritual relationship between husband and wife and is recognised and enjoined by pure Shastric Hindu Law – If a charge is created for maintenance of a female, said right becomes a legally enforceable one – At any rate, even without a charge claim for maintenance is a pre-existing right so that any transfer declaring or recognizing such a right does not confer any new title but merely endorses or confirms pre-existing rights – Were a widow gets a share in property under a preliminary decree before or at the time when 1956 Act had been passed but had not been given actual possession under a final decree, property would be deemed to be possessed by her and by force of Section 14(1) she would get absolute interest in property – However, possession of widow must be under some vestige of a claim, right or title, because Section 14 does not contemplate possession of any trespasser without any right or title – Since there are a large number of decisions which are not only inconsistent with one another, there must be clarity and certainty in interpretation of Section 14 of Act – Registry directed to place the matter before Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Larger Bench. (Paras 12, 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Interpreting Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the question is of some complexity and it has evoked wide diversity of judicial opinion not only amongst the different High Courts but also within some of the High Courts themselves.
Findings of Court:
There are a large number of decisions which are not only inconsistent with one another on principle but have tried to negotiate a contrary view by distinguishing them on facts or by simply ignoring the binding decision. There must be clarity and certainty in the interpretation of Section 14 of the Act.
Result : Matter referred to Larger bench.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether property bequeathed via will as a restricted estate enlarges into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) or remains restricted under Section 14(2) of the Act. (Para 9 )
3. Conflicting judicial interpretations exist between two streams of thought regarding the interplay of Section 14(1) and 14(2), creating uncertainty in the proprietary rights of Hindu females. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 23 )
4. A two-judge bench cannot reconcile inconsistent decisions from multiple three-judge benches regarding the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. (Para 3 , 24 )
5. Matter referred to the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger bench to reconcile principles and restate the law on Section 14. (Para 4 , 25 )
6. What is the general distinction between Section 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act?
Section 14(1) provides that property possessed by a female Hindu is held as full owner. Section 14(2) is a proviso applying to property acquired via gift, will, or decree where the instrument prescribes a restricted estate, provided it creates a new title without pre-existing rights. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
7. Under what conditions does a restricted estate enlarge into an absolute estate according to the Tulsamma principle?
When an instrument merely confirms, endorses, or recognizes a pre-existing right, such as a claim to maintenance or partition, the limited interest automatically enlarges into an absolute one under Section 14(1), and any restrictions in the document are ignored. (Para 12 )
8. When does a restricted estate created by a will remain restricted under Section 14(2)?
If the property is acquired for the first time through a will or instrument without a pre-existing right, the restrictions placed in the document are valid under Section 14(2), and the estate does not enlarge into absolute ownership. (Para 11 , 18 , 20 )
ORDER :
1. Interpreting Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 19561[Hereinafter the ‘Act’.], in V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by LRs. (1977) 3 SCC 99”, Justice Bhagwati observed that this is a classic instance of a statutory provision which, by reason of its inapt draftsmanship, has created endless confusion for litigants and has proved to be a paradise for lawyers. Raising concern about the legislative indifference and interpretative difficulties presented by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14, leading to judicial divergence, which might as well be described as chaotic, robbing the law of that modicum of certainty which it must always possess, Justice Bhagwati observed;
“67. ….. The question is of some complexity and it has evoked wide diversity of judicial opinion not only amongst the different High Courts but also within some of the High Courts themselves. It is indeed unfortunate that though it became evident as far back as 1967 that sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 were presenting serious difficulties of construction in cases where property was received by a Hindu female in lieu of maintenance and the instrument granting such property prescribed a restricted estate for her in the property and divergence of judicial opinion was creating a situation which might well be described as chaotic, robbing the law of that modicum of certainty which it must always possess in order to guide the affairs of men, the legislature, for all these years, did not care to step in to remove the constructional dilemma facing the courts and adopted an attitude of indifference and inaction, untroubled and unmoved by the large number of cases on this point encumbering the files of different courts in the country, when by the simple expedient of an amendment, it could have silenced judicial conflict and put an end to needless litigation. This is a classic instance of a statutory provision which, by reason of its inapt draftsmanship, has created endless confusion for litigants and proved a paradise for lawyers….”
2. With this trepidation, they proceeded to resolve the confusion surrounding the interplay between sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Act and to enunciate the principles that govern disposition of property in favour of Hindu female. The principles formulated in Tulsamma, as extracted in paragraph 4 of this judgment, substantially hold the field. However as of date, there are atleast 18 judgments from this Court comprising decisions from two and three Judge benches that are varying and sometimes inconsistent with the view taken in Tulsamma’s case. While arriving at their respective decisions, these judgments sought to explain, distinguish, negotiate or ignore the principles in Tulsamma and in the process they have either contradicted Tulsamma or implicitly departed from its principles sub-silentio. 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.
3. Having gone through the precedents in detail, our endeavour was to reconcile the judgments and restate the principles with clarity and certainty. However, in view of the fact that we are in a combination of a two-Judge bench, such an exercise will not be fruitful as our judgment would be subject to the decision of many three Judge benches which need to be reconciled. 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 o
