JALDI

Jaldi-Vidhi

Tej Bhan v. Ram Kishan

Case details and hearing information from the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal.

609

Message
show

Tej Bhan v. Ram Kishan

This case will clarify whether a woman’s right to a property can be limited/restricted under S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Petitioners Arguments
V. Tulsamma and other cases have clearly established a woman’s absolute right over property given to her, irrespective of the stipulations in the Will or other transfer instruments. The widow, therefore, had an absolute right to sell the property to the appellant, making the sale valid.
Responders Arguments
Karmi v. Amru (1971) (same ratio as Sadhu Singh) is valid, as it was decided by a three judge bench of the Supreme Court and had not been overruled. The same was also relied on along with Sadhu Singh and a series of similar judgements by the Punjab and Haryana High Court while pronouncing its verdict in the impugned matter.
Last Listed On
2025-02-12
Card Stage Date
2025-02-12
Review Petition No
C.A. No. 6557/2022
Case Status
Pending
Bench Status
To be reconstituted
Subject Matter
Family Law
Pendency
1 year, 6 months, 21 days

5 Judge Bench

Awaiting bench reconstitution

Consider As Stage Of Pendency
true

Date of institution of case

Date of reference to 5 Judge Bench

The Appellant bought property from a widow, who had a life interest in it, limited to the extent of her maintenance with an explicit bar on sale or mortgage. After her death, the property was to revert to her son and his grandchildren, who filed a suit to declare the sale as invalid. Under Section 14(1) in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 a Hindu woman has absolute ownership over property acquired by her. However, Section 14(2) of the 1956 Act makes an exception for properties acquired as gift or under a Will etc. If the will or deed imposes a limit, then the woman will not have absolute ownership of the property. In Seth Badri Prasad v. Smt. Kanso Devi (1969) and in V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy (1977), the Supreme Court held that Section 14(1) should be liberally read in furtherance of socio-economic objects of the Hindu Succession Act and that women should have full ownership of property, regardless of the terms of the will or transfer instrument. In Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike , however, the Court said if the transfer instrument provided a limited interest, then the woman could not claim absolute ownership and cannot sell, mortgage or dispose of the property. Multiple successive two and three judge SC benches either accepted or rejected Tulsamma and Sadhu Singh , differing from each other on a case to case basis. The present matter has been referred to the Constitution Bench to interpret the relationship between Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Act, and resolve the conflict between coordinate bench judgments.

Whether a woman enjoys absolute ownership rights under S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on properties received as a part of maintenance, partition, inheritance etc.?

Section 14(1) and (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

In light of conflicting judgments by coordinate benches, the Court referred the matter to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy

Seth Badri Prasad v. Smt. Kanso Devi

Sadhu Singh vs Gurdwara Sahib Narike

Karmi v. Amru

Hindu Succession Act | Life Interest Given To Woman Will Not Transform Into Absolute Ownership As Per Section 14 : Supreme Court

Hindu Succession Act | Life Interest Given To Woman Will Not Transform Into Absolute Ownership As Per Section 14 : Supreme Court
Source Of Info
Livelaw
Date Of Fr
2024-12-21