‘Affects Rights of Every Hindu Female…’, SC For Larger Bench To Decide Issue Of Proprietary Rights Of Hindu Female

New Delhi: A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has asked the Chief Justice of India to set up an appropriate bench to resolve varying and sometimes inconsistent views in previous precedents on the proprietary interests of a Hindu female as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, saying “the issue is of utmost importance as it affects the rights of every Hindu female, her larger family…”.

A bench comprising justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta said, “We endeavoured to reconcile the judgments and restate the principles with clarity and certainty. However, because 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 that while interpreting Section 14 in "V Tulasamma & Ors Vs Sesha Reddy (Dead) by LRs" (1977), Justice PN Bhagwati observed that this is a classic instance of a statutory provision that, because of its inapt draftsmanship, has created endless confusion for litigants and has proved to be a paradise for lawyers.

The bench said at least 18 judgments from this court comprising decisions from two and three-judge benches varying and sometimes inconsistent with the view taken in Tulsamma’s (1977) case.

The bench said 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. “There must be clarity and certainty in the position of law that would govern proprietary interests of parties involving interpretation of Section 14”, said the bench, in a judgment delivered on December 9.

Section 14 of the law states that any property owned by a female Hindu is her absolute property, whether it is movable or immovable. The provision of Section 14(1), however, does not apply to property acquired by way of gift, will, or other instrument if the terms of the gift, will, or other instrument prescribe a restricted estate in such property.

The bench said 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”.

The bench said: “We direct the Registry to place our order along with the appeal paper book before the Hon’ble 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”.

Read more: SC Asks, Why Not Create Job Opportunities And Asks Freebies Can Be Given For How Long