Hindu Succession Act | Life Interest Given To Woman Will Not Transform Into Absolute Ownership As Per Section 14 : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that when a Hindu woman is given only a restricted estate in property, then she cannot claim to be the absolute owner of the property due to the application of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956.Hence, such a property cannot be bequeathed through a Will.
The property possessed by a Hindu woman will transform into absolute ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) only if it was based on any pre-existing right or in lieu of maintenance, the Court explained. However, when the deed itself gives a limited life interest in the property, it will not transform into absolute ownership. This aspect is clear from Section 14(2) of the Act, the Court noted.
The bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol dismissed an appeal by the defendants in an original suit, who claimed ownership of 3.55 acres of land, asserting that their mother, Smt. Veerabhadramma had bequeathed the property to them. The Court concluded that Smt. Veerabhadramma's restricted right in the property barred her from becoming its absolute owner under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), rendering her ineligible to transfer the property through a Will.
The plaintiff-respondent sought partition of the suit property, in which Smt. Veerabhadramma held a life interest. This life interest, created through a 1933 partition deed, stipulated that the property would be distributed among other legal heirs, including the respondents upon her death.
The defendant-appellant opposed the partition, arguing that Smt. Veerabhadramma had bequeathed the property to them based on her status as the absolute owner of the suit property.
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff-respondent, holding that the 1933 partition deed granted Smt. Veerabhadramma only a life interest, without conferring absolute ownership. It further concluded that her rights did not convert into absolute rights under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The High Court upheld this decision, leading the defendant to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Declining to interfere with the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol held that the restricted rights granted to Smt. Veerabhadramma could not be transformed into an absolute ownership right. The Court noted that Smt. Veerabhadramma did not possess any pre-existing rights under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, that would justify conferring an absolute right upon her.
“Property given in lieu of maintenance would solidify into absolute ownership by action of Section 14(1) of HSA, 1956. In other words, the right of maintenance on its own is apposite for such property to transfer into her sole, unquestionable, and absolute right. The partition deed of 1933, it has been held, is clear that 3.55 Cents of land would be enjoyed by Smt. Veerabhadramma as a life interest and thereafter would devolve upon the two lines of succession, i.e., the sons of late Kallakuri Swami through his first wife and also his second wife.”, the court observed.
Accordingly, the Court justified partitioning the suit property and dismissed the appeal.
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) Ms. G. Madhavi, AOR Mr. M Surender Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. R Santhana Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar Archiya, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. M Srinivas R Rao, Adv. Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P, Adv. Mr. Saswat Adhyapak, Adv. Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR Mr. P. Vinay Kumar, AOR
Case Title: KALLAKURI PATTABHIRAMASWAMY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. VERSUS KALLAKURI KAMARAJU & ORS.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 906
Click here to read/download the judgment