The Supreme Court on Monday (9th December) has referred the matter related to the proprietary rights of Hindu females under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to a larger bench. The issue centers around the interpretation of Sections 14(1) and 14(2), which deal with a Hindu female’s absolute right to property, and the inconsistencies arising from previous judgments.
A bench comprising Justice P S Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed concern over the contradictions in judicial precedents that have caused confusion regarding the rights of Hindu females to property inherited or possessed by them. The bench noted that these inconsistencies impact cases nationwide, where issues regarding female inheritance rights are often under consideration. "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 original and appellate courts across the length and breadth of the country," the Court remarked.
The crux of the confusion stems from the conflicting interpretations of Section 14(1), which asserts that property owned by a Hindu female is her absolute property, and Section 14(2), which provides exceptions to this rule for property acquired through gifts, wills, or other instruments. Notably, Section 14(2) applies only when the instrument confers a restricted estate, thereby limiting the female’s ownership.
Referring to past judgments, the bench highlighted that the interpretations of Section 14 have been inconsistent, leading to prolonged litigation. "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," the bench observed. The court emphasized the need for clarity, stating, "There must be clarity and certainty in the interpretation of Section 14 of the Act."
The Court also cited the landmark case of V Tulasamma & Ors. v. Sesha Reddy (1977), where the Supreme Court observed that the drafting of Section 14 had caused considerable confusion, creating an environment that has been beneficial for lawyers but detrimental to litigants. "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," noted Justice P N Bhagwati in the V Tulasamma case.
In light of these concerns, the bench decided to refer the issue to the Chief Justice of India, urging the constitution of a larger bench to reconcile conflicting judicial opinions. The bench noted that, given the volume of contradictory precedents, a two-judge bench would not be sufficient to resolve the issue effectively. "While interpreting Section 14 in V Tulasamma, Justice P N 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," they added.
In its order, the bench directed the registry to forward the case papers to the Chief Justice to constitute a larger bench to resolve the conflicting interpretations of Sections 14(1) and 14(2), ultimately seeking to restate the law clearly and definitively.
This case follows an appeal arising from a property dispute where the validity of a will executed in favour of a wife was challenged. The appellants argued that the wife’s interest in the property was absolute under Section 14(1), while the opposing party contended that Section 14(2) should apply, rendering the wife’s ownership limited.
Picture Source :