Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a Hindu woman with a restricted estate in property cannot claim absolute ownership or transfer such property through a Will. The ruling came while dismissing a case where the defendants claimed ownership of land bequeathed by their mother, whose limited life interest in the property prevented her from becoming its absolute owner.  

• This judgment observes the distinction between Sections 14(1) and 14(2) regarding property rights for Hindu women. 

What was the Background of Kallakuri Pattabhiramaswamy (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Kallakuri Kamaraju & Ors.  case ? 

• The case involves a property dispute between two branches of the same family - step-brothers who are sons of Kallakuri Swamy from his two marriages. 
• Through a partition deed dated 25th August, 1933, Smt. Veerabhadramma (second wife) was given a life interest in 3.55 cents of land across various survey numbers in Teki, West Khandrika, and Angara villages. 
• The partition deed stipulated that after Smt. Veerabhadramma's death, this property would be equally divided between her son and her step-sons (sons from first wife). 
• Smt. Veerabhadramma passed away on 6th February 1973, which triggered the succession rights as per the 1933 partition deed. 
• Before her death, Smt. Veerabhadramma had executed a registered Will dated 30th December, 1968, purportedly bequeathing the scheduled properties to one of the defendants. 
• The respondent-plaintiffs (sons from first wife) filed Original Suit No.50 of 1984 seeking their share in the property as per the 1933 partition deed. 
• The defendants (representing Smt. Veerabhadramma's interests) contended that she had acquired absolute rights over the property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and therefore had the right to bequeath it through a Will. 
• The matter progressed through various courts, starting from the Trial Court to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and finally reached the Supreme Court through Civil Appeal No.5389 of 2012. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that under Hindu law, a woman's right to maintenance is not statutorily created but originates from Shastric Hindu law, which was later given statutory recognition through various legislations. 
• The Court distinguished between Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, holding that property given in lieu of maintenance would transform into absolute ownership under Section 14(1), while property acquired under an instrument prescribing a restricted estate would fall under Section 14(2). 
• The Court observed that in this case, Smt. Veerabhadramma was given absolute rights over 2.09 cents of land, which satisfied her Shastric right to maintenance, while the disputed 3.55 cents were given as a restricted estate with clear life interest. 
• The Bench noted that the 1933 partition deed explicitly created a new right in favor of Smt. Veerabhadramma with respect to the 3.55 cents by giving her only life interest, with the remainder specifically designated to her two sons. 
• The Court affirmed that where property is given under an instrument creating an independent or new right for the first time, rather than recognizing a pre-existing right, Section 14(2) would apply instead of Section 14(1). 
• Following the principle laid down in V. Tulsamma's case, the Court held that maintenance must be proper, appropriate, and adequate to maintain the woman's previous lifestyle, and found no evidence suggesting the maintenance provided was insufficient. 
• The Court concluded that since the 3.55 cents of land was clearly given as a restricted estate under the partition deed, Section 14(2) applied, preventing its transformation into absolute ownership and consequently making the Will inoperative regarding this property. 

What is Section 14(1) and Section 14(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 

• Section 14(1) establishes that any property possessed by a female Hindu, regardless of when acquired (before or after the Act), shall be held by her as absolute owner, eliminating the concept of limited ownership. 
• The Explanation to Section 14(1) provides an expansive definition of "property" which includes:  
  • Both movable and immovable property 
  • Property acquired through inheritance or devise 
  • Property received at partition 
  • Property obtained in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance 
  • Property received as gift from any person (relative or non-relative) 
  • Property acquired before, during, or after marriage 
  • Property gained through personal skill or exertion 
  • Property obtained through purchase or prescription 
  • Property held as stridhana before the Act's commencement 
• Section 14(2) acts as an exception to Section 14(1) and specifically excludes property acquired through:  
  • Gift 
  • Will 
  • Any other instrument 
  • Court decree/order 
  • Award 
• The exclusion under Section 14(2) applies only when the terms of acquisition explicitly prescribe a restricted estate in such property. 
• The legislative intent behind Section 14(1) is to remedy the limited estate concept under traditional Hindu Law and convert all limited estates held by Hindu women into absolute estates. 
• Section 14(2) preserves the grantor's right to create a restricted estate through specific instruments, provided the restriction is explicitly stated in the instrument of transfer. 
• The interplay between Sections 14(1) and 14(2) requires careful examination of the source of the woman's right to determine whether the property becomes her absolute estate or remains restricted. 

Evolution of Women's Property Rights Under Hindu Law: A Historical Analysis 

Pre-Hindu Succession Act Era (Traditional Hindu Law) 

• Mitakshara School 
  • Women were not recognized as coparceners 
  • No inherent right to ancestral property 
  • Limited rights mainly through maintenance provisions 
  • Property rights were severely restricted 
  • Could only hold Stridhan (gifts received during marriage, etc.) 
• Dayabhaga School 
  • Relatively more progressive approach 
  • Widows could inherit their husband's property 
  • Key limitation: Property would pass to male heirs upon widow's death, even if she had daughters 
  • Daughters had no independent inheritance rights 

Features of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 

• Unified Inheritance Law  
  • Created uniformity across different Hindu law schools 
  • Established clear succession rules 
  • Applied to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs 
• Women's Rights  
  • Recognized women's right to inherit 
  • Created class I heirs including widow, daughter, and mother 
  • Granted absolute ownership instead of limited estate 
  • Removed restrictions on widow's remarriage 
• Limitations 
  • Daughters still not coparceners in joint family property 
  • Inequality persisted in ancestral property succession 
  • Married daughters had limited rights compared to sons 

Features of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 

• Equal Coparcenary Rights  
  • Daughters made coparceners by birth 
  • Equal rights with sons in ancestral property 
  • Rights irrespective of marriage status 
• Property Rights  
  • Absolute ownership rights 
  • Right to dispose of inherited property 
  • Equal share in partition 
  • Right to demand partition 
• Key Principles 
  • Retrospective Application  
    • Rights apply to living daughters of living coparceners 
    • Applicable even if father died before 2005 amendment 
  • Absolute Ownership  
    • Women can sell, mortgage, or dispose of inherited property 
    • No restrictions on remarriage 
    • Full testamentary powers 
  • Fundamental Principles: 
    • A woman's life interest transforms into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of HSA if based on pre-existing rights or maintenance 
    • Life interest granted through new instruments creating restricted estates falls under Section 14(2) of HSA