Hindu Women’s Absolute Ownership Of Property Under Section 14(1) Of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 When It Was Based On Their Pre-Existing Rights

Background

The case involved property bequeathed by Kanwar Bhan to his wife through a will. After inheriting the property, the wife sold it to the appellants via a registered deed. The legal heirs of Kanwar Bhan’s wife later challenged the sale, asserting that her ownership was restricted under Section 14(2) rather than absolute under Section 14(1).

Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court favored the appellants, citing the principles in V. Tulasamma. However, the High Court overturned these decisions, applying the reasoning in Sadhu Singh.

The appellants subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, which has now referred the matter to a larger bench for further adjudication.

Very recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined conflicting interpretations of Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), which delineate property rights of Hindu women.

The Bench, comprising of Hon’ble Justice PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, harped on the inconsistencies in previous rulings. There are plethora of cases in the said proposition, amongst all the case of V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. Sesha Reddy (1977) recognized Hindu women’s absolute ownership of property under Section 14(1) when it was based on their pre-existing rights. This position was reinforced in cases such as Gulwant Kaur v. Mohinder Singh (1987) and Jupudy Pardha Sarathy v. Pentapati Rama Krishna (2016).

Conversely, rulings like Karmi v. Amru (1972) and Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike & Ors. (2006) interpreted Section 14(2) as imposing restrictions on property ownership where property was acquired through documents like wills or gifts post-enactment of the HSA, unless explicitly unrestricted.

In V. Tulasamma, the Court clarified that Section 14(2) is applicable only when new rights are created, whereas Section 14(1) applies to cases recognizing pre-existing rights. This interpretation ensures that limitations on property ownership arising from recognized pre-existing rights are invalidated, granting full ownership to women.

In contrast, Sadhu Singh relied on Karmi v. Amru to assert that Section 14(1) does not apply to property acquired after the HSA’s commencement if ownership terms include restrictions.

Recognizing the need for a definitive resolution, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench for a comprehensive interpretation of the provisions.