The Supreme Court referred the issue of proprietary rights of Hindu females to the Chief Justice of India for the formation of a larger bench. A bench comprising Justices P. S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta emphasized the significance of the matter, as it impacts the rights of Hindu women and their extended families. The judges noted that similar claims and objections are under consideration in numerous original and appellate courts nationwide.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of India to establish an appropriate bench to address the varying and sometimes inconsistent interpretations of the proprietary interests of Hindu females under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta emphasized,
“This issue is critical as it impacts the rights of every Hindu woman, her extended family, and the claims and objections pending in various original and appellate courts nationwide.”
Section 14 states that any property owned by a female Hindu is considered her absolute property, regardless of whether it is movable or immovable. However, Section 14(1) does not apply to property acquired through a gift, will, or any other instrument if those terms prescribe a restricted estate.
The bench noted,
“There are numerous decisions that are not only inconsistent with each other on principle but have attempted to establish a contrary view by distinguishing them based on facts or by simply disregarding binding decisions.”
They stressed the need for clarity and certainty in interpreting Section 14.
The court directed the registry to present the order along with the appeal paper book to the Chief Justice for the formation of a larger bench to reconcile the principles established in various judgments and restate the law regarding the interplay between subsections (1) and (2) of Section 14.
Referencing the case of “V. Tulasamma & Ors vs. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by LRs” (1977), the bench highlighted Justice P.N. Bhagwati’s observation that the statutory provision has led to significant confusion for litigants and has become a “paradise for lawyers.”
Currently, there are at least 18 judgments from the court, including those from two- and three-judge benches, which present varying and sometimes contradictory views compared to Tulasamma’s case.
The bench remarked,
“While arriving at their respective decisions, these judgments sought to explain, distinguish, negotiate, or ignore the principles in Tulasamma, often contradicting or implicitly departing from its principles sub-silentio.”
Almost four decades after the Tulasamma judgment, there are two prevailing interpretations: one upholds Tulasamma’s principles as steadfast, asserting that property held by a Hindu female before or after the Act’s commencement is hers as a full owner; the other evolves case by case, influenced by factors such as how the Hindu female acquired the property, the instrument through which the right was obtained, and the timing of possession.
Given these precedents, the court expressed its intent to reconcile the judgments and clarify the principles.
Read Also: “Wearing Sindoor is a Marital Duty” | MP Family Court
However, they acknowledged that as a two-judge bench, their efforts would not be effective, as their judgment would be subject to the decisions of multiple three-judge benches that require reconciliation.
The term “Hindu female” generally refers to a woman who is part of the Hindu community, as defined by Indian personal laws, including the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This designation is important in legal contexts as it outlines the rights, responsibilities, and entitlements of women regarding property inheritance, marriage, and family law. The definition encompasses individuals practicing Hinduism, as well as followers of Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, in accordance with Indian legal provisions.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
