S. 14(1) Hindu Succession Act

The main object of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (the Act) is to remove inequalities between men and women with respect to rights in property and evolves a list of heirs entitled to succeed on intestacy based on natural love and affection rather than religious efficacy.

The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was passed by the Parliament to alter and codify the law of intestate or unwilled succession among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs.

The Act abolishes the Hindu woman’s limited estate. Any property possessed by a Hindu female is to be held by her absolute property and she is given full power to deal with it and dispose it of by will as she likes.

The Act was amended in 2005 by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 (the Amendment Act)

The statement of objects and reasons of the Amendment Act explained the purpose for which amendments were made to law concerning rights of women in the following words-

“…….The retention of the Mitakshara coparcenary property without including the females in it means that the females cannot inherit in ancestral property as their male counterparts do. The law by excluding the daughter from participating in the coparcenary ownership not only contributes to her discrimination on the ground of gender but also has led to oppression and negation of her fundamental right of equality guaranteed by the Constitution. Having regard to the need to render social justice to women, the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra have made necessary changes in the law giving equal right to daughters in Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property.”

A few sections were omitted by the Amendment Act and there were consequential amendments to section 30X of the Act dealing with testamentary succession by including the rights of a woman also to dispose of by will or other testamentary disposition any property, which is capable of being so disposed of by her in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), or any other law for the time being in force and applicable to Hindus. There was also amendment to the schedule of the Principal Act by adding in Class I after the words “widow of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son”, the words “son of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased son.”

After referring briefly to the Act and the amendments made by the Amendment Act let us shift our focus to section 14 of the Act which has the caption reading as “Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.”

Section 14 of the Act

This section is considered to be a progressive step giving rights of a property to a Hindu female.

Section 14 of the Act reads as under-

“14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property. —

(1)		Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
		Explanation.—In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.
(2)		Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.”

The case of V. Tulasamma (supra)

This decision [V.Tulasamma’s case Supra] was rendered by a Bench consisting of 3 Hon’ble Judges – Hon’ble Justice Shri. P.N. Bhagwati, Hon’ble Justice Shri. A.C. Gupta and Hon’ble Justice Shri. Syed Murtaza Fazalali and the main judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Justices Shri. P.N. Bhagwati and Shri. A.C. Gupta and Hon’ble Justice Shri. Syed Murtaza Fazalali delivered a separate but concurring judgment.

The propositions emerging in respect of incidents and characteristics of a Hindu woman’s right to maintenance have been crystallised by the Supreme Court at para.20of this judgment as under-

“Thus, on a careful consideration and detailed analysis of the authorities mentioned above and the Shastric Hindu Law on the subject, the following propositions emerge with respect to the incidents and characteristics of a Hindu woman’s right to maintenance:

(1)		that a Hindu woman’s right to maintenance is a personal obligation so far as the husband is concerned, and it is his duty to maintain her even if he has no property. If the husband has property, then the right of the widow to maintenance becomes an equitable charge on his property and any person who succeeds to the property carries with it the legal obligation to maintain the widow;
(2)		though the widow’s right to maintenance is not a right to property but it is undoubtedly pre-existing right in property, i.e., it is a jus ad rem not jus in rem and it can be enforced by the widow who can get a charge created for her maintenance on the property either by an agreement or by obtaining a decree from the civil court;
(3)		that the right of maintenance is a matter of moment and is of such importance that even if the joint property is sold and the purchaser has notice of the widow’s right to maintenance, the purchaser is legally bound to provide for her maintenance;
(4)		that the right to maintenance is undoubtedly a pre-existing right which existed in the Hindu Law long before the passing of the Act of 1937 or the Act of 1946, and is, therefore, a pre-existing right;
(5)		that the right to maintenance flows from the social and temporal relationship between the husband and the wife by virtue of which the wife becomes a sort Jayanti Subbiah v. Alamelu Mangamma [1902] ILR 27 Mad. 45. (2), Yellawa v. Bhimangavda [1894] ILR 18 Bom. 452) of co-owner in the property of her husband, though her co-ownership is of a subordinate nature; and
(6)		that where a Hindu widow is in possession of the property of her husband, she is entitled to retain the possession in lieu of her maintenance unless the person who succeeds to the property or purchases the same is in a position to make due arrangements for her maintenance.”

“jus ad rem” means the right to possess a thing, an inchoate and imperfect right whereas “jus in rem” means a complete and full right, a real right or a right to have a thing to the exclusion of all other men.

In Para.33 of the judgment [ in V.Tulasamma’s case (supra)] it was observed as under-

“—the language of sub-s. (2) clearly shows that it would apply only to such transactions which. are absolutely independent in nature and which are not in recognition of or in lieu of pre-existing rights. It appears from the Parliamentary Debates that when the Hindu Succession Bill, 1954, was referred to a Joint Committee by the Rajya Sabha, in section 14(2) which was clause 16(2) of the Draft Bill of the Joint Committee, the words mentioned were only gift or will. Thus, the intention of the Parliament was to confine sub-section (2) only to two transactions, namely a gift or a will, which clearly would not include property received by a Hindu female in lieu of maintenance or at a partition.

Finally, we cannot overlook the scope and extent of a proviso. There can be no doubt that sub-section (2) of section 14 is. clearly a proviso to section 14 (1) and this has been so held by this Court in Badri Prasad v. Smt.Kansa Devi [1970] 2 SCR 95. It is well settled that a provision in the nature of a proviso merely carves out an exception to the main provision and cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to. destroy the effect of the main provision or to render the same nugatory. If we accept the argument of the respondent that sub-section (2 ) to section 14 would include even a property which has been acquired by a Hindu female at a partition or in lieu of maintenance then a substantial part of the Explanation would be completely set at naught which could never be the intention of the proviso Thus we are clearly of the opinion that sub-section (2) of section 14 of the proviso should be interpreted in such a way so as not to substantially erode section 14(1) or the Explanation thereto. In the present case we feel that the proviso has carved out completely a separate. field and before it can apply three conditions must exist:

(i)		that the property must have been acquired by way of gift, will, instrument, decree, order of the Court or by an award;
(ii)		that any of these documents executed in favour of a Hindu female must prescribe a restricted estate in such property; and
(iii)		that the instrument must create or confer a new right, title or interest on the Hindu female and not merely recognise or give effect to a pre-existing right which the female Hindu already possessed.

Where any of these documents are executed but no restricted estate is prescribed, sub-section (2) will have no application. Similarly, where these instruments do not confer a new title for the first time on the female Hindu, section 14(1) would have no application. It seems to me that s. 14(2) is a salutary provision which has been incorporated by the Parliament for historical reasons in order to maintain the link between the Shastric Hindu Law and the Hindu Law which was sought to be changed by recent legislation, so that where a female Hindu became possessed of property not in virtue of any pre-existing right but otherwise, and the grantor chose to impose certain conditions on the grantee, the legislature did not want to interfere with such a transaction by obliterating or setting at naught the conditions imposed.”

Section 14(1) in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.Explanation.—In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.

Supreme Court: In a civil appeal against Rajasthan High Court’s Division Bench decision whereby, the appeal against decision of the Single Judge for upholding the Civil Court’s decision as to widow wife’s right to be maintained from the suit property of the Hindu family, was dismissed, the Division Bench of BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned decisions. The Bench reiterated that for establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family estate under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act, the Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the property.

Factual Matrix The suit property was owned by A who had two sons, namely, M1 and M2. M2 was married to the original petitioner (widow-wife). The widow-wife, in the original suit claimed to adopt the plaintiff-son on 12-06-1959, nearly after 30 years of death of her husband. M1’s son had executed a will of the entire unpartitioned estate in favour of his son (the present appellant). M1’s son passed away in 1954 and the suit property devolved upon the present appellant under the will executed by his father/ M1’s son. The widow-wife filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of title and possession over the suit property contending that the property in question was a joint Hindu family property and that the will allegedly executed by M1’s son was illegal. The present appellant was the defendant in the said civil suit and it was contended that he was not entitled to any share in the HUF property by virtue of the will. The Civil Court dismissed the said suit vide judgment and decree dated 21-05-1959, however recognised her rights of widow-wife only to the extent of receiving maintenance from the suit property. The said decision was challenged by the present appellant which was allowed by the Senior Civil Judge vide judgment dated 09-02-1968 and set aside the Civil Court’s judgment and decree. A second appeal was preferred by the widow-wife before the Single Judge of the High Court, however, during the pendency of the same, when widow-wife passed away, her legal heir i.e. plaintiff-son was taken on record. The Single Judge allowed the second appeal and restored the Civil Court’s judgment to the extent of her right to be maintained from the suit property. Subsequently, the plaintiff-son filed Revenue Suit for partition of the suit property before the Revenue Court claiming his mother/ widow-wife was entitled to a rightful share in the property by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Succession Act, 1925. The appeal from the said Revenue Suit seeking partition which culminated in the impugned judgment dated 02-11-2017 passed by the Division Bench.

Analysis and Decision The Court reiterated that the issue regarding title and possession over the suit property was concluded against widow-wife and that she was never in possession of the suit property was an admitted position from the record because she never challenged the judgment and decree dated 21-05-1959 whereby the suit filed by her for declaration of title and possession was dismissed by the Civil Court and she was held only entitled to receive maintenance from the undivided estate. The Court referred to Munni Devi v. Rajendra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 643, wherein, the widow was actually residing in the suit property during the time the coparcener was alive and even after his death, she continued to reside in the said house and used to collect the rents from the tenants who were occupying the suit property till the date of filing of suit, hence, the Court after taking into consideration the pre-existing right of the female to maintenance from the estate of the HUF of her husband and her exclusive settled possession over the suit property concluded that she had acquired the suit property in lieu of her pre-existing right to maintenance and that she had held the suit property as the full owner and not limited owner by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Succession Act. Regarding the question that whether in absence of even a semblance of possession either actual or legal over the suit property, plaintiff-son being the legal heir of widow-wife was entitled to institute a Revenue suit for partition of the suit property based on the succession rights of the widow on the joint Hindu family property, the Court referred to Ram Vishal v. Jagan Nath, (2004) 9 SCC 302, wherein, it was held that, a pre-existing right is a sine qua non for conferment of a full ownership under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the property. Hence, the Court reiterated that, for establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family estate under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act, the Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the property and such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance” or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription. Thus, the Court held that since, the widow-wife was never in possession of the suit property, as a necessary corollary the Revenue suit for partition claiming absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act could not be maintained by her plaintiff-son by virtue of inheritance….

FAQs

What is Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act?

Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, states that any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be held by her as full owner and not as a limited owner.

What is the significance of Section 14(1)?

The significance of Section 14(1) lies in its transformative effect on the property rights of Hindu women. It changes their status from limited owners to full owners, thus granting them absolute rights over the property they possess.