Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on December 9, 2024 referred a matter to the Chief Justice of India for setting up an appropriate bench to resolve "varying and sometimes inconsistent view" taken with regard to precedents on proprietary interests of a Hindu female in terms of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

"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, we are of the view that there must be clarity and certainty in the interpretation of Section 14 of the Act," a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta said.

The bench pointed out 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.

"It is absolutely necessary that there must be clarity and certainty in the position of law that would govern proprietary interests of parties involving interpretation of Section 14," the bench said.

Dealing with a matter, the court directed the Registry to place the order along with the appeal paper book before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate larger bench for reconciling the principles laid down in various judgments of this court and for restating the law on the interplay between sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.

The bench pointed out interpreting Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 19561, in V Tulasamma & Ors Vs Sesha Reddy (Dead) by LRs (1977), 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.

Justice Bhagwati had then raised 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 bench said.

"With the trepidation, they proceeded to resolve the confusion surrounding the interplay between sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Act and to enunciate the principles that govern disposition of property in favour of Hindu female," the bench said.

The principles formulated in Tulsamma substantially hold the field. However as of date, there are atleast 18 judgments from this court comprising decisions from two and three judge benches that are varying and sometimes inconsistent with the view taken in Tulsamma’s case, the bench noted.

"While arriving at their respective decisions, these judgments sought to explain, distinguish, negotiate or ignore the principles in Tulsamma and in the process they have either contradicted Tulsamma or implicitly departed from its principles sub-silentio," the bench said.

Almost four decades after the judgment in Tulsamma, the bench noted there are two streams of thoughts.

"While the first applies principles in Tulsamma as an inviolable principle steadfastly holding that property possessed by a Hindu female before or after the commencement of the Act shall be held by her as a full owner. The other seems to be evolving from case to case, influenced by, i) the method and manner by which the Hindu female is possessed of the property, ii) the instrument through which the right is acquired, and iii) the time at which such possession takes place, to mention a few," the bench said.

In view of such precedents, the bench said its endeavour is to reconcile the judgments and restate the principles with clarity and certainty.

"However, in view of the fact that we are in a combination of a two-Judge bench, such an exercise will not be fruitful as our judgment would be subject to the decision of many three Judge benches which need to be reconciled," the bench said, referring to the CJI for setting up a larger bench to decide the matter.

In Tulasamma judgement, Justice Bhagwati wrote, "It is indeed unfortunate that though it became evident as far back as 1967 that sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 were presenting serious difficulties of construction in cases where property was received by a Hindu female in lieu of maintenance and the instrument granting such property prescribed a restricted estate for her in the property and divergence of judicial opinion was creating a situation which might well be described as chaotic, robbing the law of that modicum of certainty which it must always possess in order to guide the affairs of men, the legislature, for all these years, did not care to step in to remove the constructional dilemma facing the courts and adopted an attitude of indifference and inaction, untroubled and unmoved by the large number of cases on this point encumbering the files of different courts in the country, when by the simple expedient of an amendment, it could have silenced judicial conflict and put an end to needless litigation. This is a classic instance of a statutory provision which, by reason of its inapt draftsmanship, has created endless confusion for litigants and proved a paradise for lawyers".

Case Title: Tej Bhan (D) Through LRs & Ors Vs Ram Kishan (D) Through LRs & Ors