What can Hindu women really inherit?

The Succession Act was a great reform that would dismantle the patriarchal laws regarding property and the mindsets surrounding them.

By Anuj Gupta and Dhananjay Singh

Beyond measures and bounds is the significance of women, more so their contribution in the society. With the efflux of time the disposition of property for women has changed bringing forth their exclusive right or to say their full ownership over the property, which earlier was full of disparity. Though the gap still exists, for even after Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there are some gender-discriminatory provisions in existence.

The transformative vision of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, confers absolute ownership of property to a Hindu female, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the law, as full owner not as a limited owner. The word “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 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.

Section 14(2), however, states that property which has been acquired through a gift, a will, or a court order accompanied by specific limitations on ownership does not fall under the realm of absolute ownership. This has led to contrary judgments from time to time.

The Succession Act was a great reform that would dismantle the patriarchal laws regarding property and the mindsets surrounding them. Section 14 (1) sought to redress the historical injustices by granting women absolute right over their property, irrespective of when or how it was acquired. However, the conflicting interpretations of Section 14(2) have diluted the intent or to say the transformative potential of this provision.

Judicial interpretations: A legacy of conflicting rulings

The conflicting tussle over Section 14(2) began with Karmi Vs Amru (1972) where the Supreme Court casted a new light by holding that the general rule of absolute ownership under Section 14(1) does not extend to property acquired through testamentary instruments (a will, for example). The said judgment has been repeatedly invoked to limit women’s claim to absolute ownership when restrictive terms govern the acquisition.

Subsequent ruling in V. Tulasamma Vs Sesha Reddi (1977), shifted away from Karmi’s narrow interpretation by expanding the scope of Section 14(1), holding that pre-existing rights (like the right to maintenance) could convert limited ownership into absolute ownership if the property was possessed after the Act’s enactment.

After Jagannathan Pillai in 1987, the scope of Section 14(1) further enlarged, holding that even properties acquired without an explicit pre-existing right could sometimes fall under its scope if they recognised women entitlement in practice.

Recently, in Kallakuri Pattabhiramaswamy Case (2024) the Supreme Court clarified that a property which, by a legal document, has been expressly created as a life estate would not be converted into ownership under Section 14(1). This aligns with the view that 14(2) safeguards restricted estates when explicitly defined in instruments.

Challenges to gender justice in property rights

The mist of turbidity; conflicting decisions, interpretations have somewhat created an unpredictability in balancing gender justice, for the inconsistency in the decisions has created more uncertainty.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to refer the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act to a larger bench signifies the long standing judicial inconsistencies surrounding women’s property rights. The court has, therefore, to place priority on the broader objective of the Act-empowering women to have equal property rights-over all unnecessary technicalities. The Supreme Court has the chance to cement the follies of the Hindu Succession Act and create a precedent synonymous with India's evolving ethos of gender justice.

(Anuj Gupta leads Vidhi, a law firm. Dhananjay Singh is enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh).

Views are personal and do not represent the stand of this publication.