TEJ BHAN (D) THROUGH LR. & ORS. VERSUS RAM KISHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6557 OF 2022

In TEJ BHAN (D) THROUGH LR. & ORS. VERSUS RAM KISHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6557 OF 2022 the Supreme Court brought attention to the confusion and differing interpretations regarding Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which focus on the property rights of Hindu women. Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta discussed the contradictions in previous court rulings. Some cases support women’s rights, affirming their full ownership of property they receive based on their prior rights under Section 14(1). Others, however, rely on Section 14(2), which restricts women’s ownership unless the property was given to them before or at the time the Act was enacted.

“Interpreting Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by LRs., 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,” the Court observed.

The case that strongly backed women’s rights was V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by LRs (1977), followed by several others like Gulwant Kaur v. Mohinder Singh (1987) and Balwant Kaur v. Chanan Singh & Ors. (2000). In contrast, Karmi v. Amru (1972) set limitations on female property rights, and this was echoed in cases like Bhura and Ors. v. Kashiram (1994).

In the V. Tulasamma ruling, the Court noted that Sections 14(1) and 14(2) serve their own purposes. It stated that the exceptions in Section 14(2) shouldn’t undermine the protections offered by Section 14(1). The Court emphasized that Section 14(2) applies only when a new right is created for women, not when it simply acknowledges existing rights under Section 14(1).

According to the ruling, Sub-section (2) of s. 14 applies to instruments that create new titles for women and has no relevance when confirming pre-existing rights. If a woman receives property related to maintenance or share in a partition, this falls under Section 14(1) and any limitations noted in documents would not apply.

On the other hand, the Court in Sadhu Singh’s case, relying on Karmi v. Amru, outlined key factors to consider when applying Section 14(1), such as the property’s background, who had possession at the time the Act was enacted, and any rights the woman had, even if they were limited. The Sadhu Singh ruling also stated that if a woman obtains property post-Act under certain conditions, it doesn’t automatically mean Section 14(1) applies. It will depend on the nature of her right. If she inherits under the Act, she owns it fully, but if there are restrictions tied to her gaining possession, those will be relevant under Section 14(2).

Recognizing the need for a clear, authoritative decision on Section 14, the Court instructed the Registry to present its order and the appeal documents to the Chief Justice of India. This is to form a larger panel to review and clarify how Sections 14(1) and 14(2) work together within the Hindu Succession Act.