by THO
The Supreme Court has decided to untangle the labyrinthine interpretations of property rights granted to Hindu women under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, potentially marking a landmark in a saga spanning six decades.
The question? Whether a Hindu wife inherits full ownership rights to property bequeathed by her husband, even when a will imposes restrictions.
A bench of justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, grappling with the legal tug-of-war on an issue that has led to as many as 20 judgments in the last six decades, called for a larger bench on Monday to settle the issue once and for all.
The bench described the issue as one that “affects the rights of every Hindu female, her larger family, and such claims and objections that may be pending consideration in almost all original and appellate courts across the length and breadth of the country.”
The stakes go far beyond legal semantics. For millions of Hindu women, the interpretation of Section 14 can determine whether they have the autonomy to use, transfer or sell property without interference.
The roots of the present case stretch back almost six decades to a will executed in 1965 by an individual identified as Kanwar Bhan, who granted his wife the right to possess and enjoy a piece of land during her lifetime, but with the stipulation that the property would revert to his heirs after her death.
Years later, the wife sold the land, asserting herself as its full owner. The purchaser’s son and grandson challenged the sale, and the matter wound its way through the courts, generating contradictory rulings at every level.
The trial court and appellate court sided with the wife, relying on a 1977 Supreme Court precedent in Tulasamma Vs Sesha Reddy that broadly interpreted Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act to grant absolute ownership rights to Hindu women.
However, the Punjab and Haryana high court disagreed, invoking an earlier Supreme Court ruling in Karmi Vs Amru (1972), which held that a will’s specific restrictions could limit a woman’s property rights under Section 14(2).
This conflict brought the case before the Supreme Court, where the bench recalled Justice PN Bhagwati’s lament in his Tulasamma ruling. The former judge had called the legislative drafting of Section 14 “a paradise for lawyers” and a source of “endless confusion for litigants.”
The reference order suggests Justice Bhagwati was not wrong — over the decades, courts have struggled with divergent interpretations, sometimes even within the same high court.
Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act was a progressive step aimed at granting Hindu women full ownership of property they acquired “by whatever means”, whether before or after the law’s enactment.
It sought to erase the limitations of traditional Hindu law, where women were often relegated to holding only limited or “lifelong” interests in property.
However, Section 14(2) carved out exceptions, stating that property gifted, willed or granted with specific conditions would not automatically convert into absolute ownership.
This dichotomy left the judiciary wrestling with interpretations for nearly five decades.
Justice Narasimha acknowledged the deep divide, noting that judgments since Tulasamma have evolved into “two streams of thought”— one that applies its principles unwaveringly to empower Hindu women, and another that leans on case-specific considerations like the method of property acquisition or the instrument of transfer.
The bench’s referral order underscored the stakes involved, observing, “There must be clarity and certainty in the position of law that would govern proprietary interests of parties involving interpretation of Section 14.”
The judges pointed out that conflicting precedents—18 by their count after Tulasamma and Karmi — have created a state of confusion that has left the rights of Hindu women across India in limbo.
The Supreme Court’s deliberations also touched on the enduring impact of earlier cases such as Gumpha Vs Jaibai (1994), which supported Karmi in holding that property inherited through wills could carry specific limitations.
The 1994 judgment held that the law did not intend to grant Hindu women greater rights than those enjoyed by men, a perspective that complicates the emancipatory intent of Section 14(1).
The larger bench will now have to reconcile these divergent views and determine whether wills that impose conditions or limitations can curtail the ownership rights of Hindu women under Section 14(1).
