There Must Be Clarity In Interpretation: SC Refers Question On Interplay Between Sub-Sections 1&2 Of S.14 Of Hindu Succession Act To Larger Bench
The Supreme Court has referred the question on interplay between Sub-Sections 1 and 2 of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) to a larger Bench.
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal filed by a purchaser of the Suit Scheduled Property under a Sale Deed.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta said, “We heard the present appeal in detail and have also taken a view in the matter, but having realised that there are a large number of decisions which are not only inconsistent with one another on principle but have tried to negotiate a contrary view by distinguishing them on facts or by simply ignoring the binding decision, we are of the view that there must be clarity and certainty in the interpretation of Section 14 of the Act.”
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Advocate Sunil K. Mittal appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
In this case, the Appellant was the purchaser of the Suit Scheduled Property under a Sale Deed executed by the wife of the testator, who was the original owner of the property. The testator during his lifetime executed a will in favour of his wife. The will created a life estate in favour of his wife. After the execution of the above referred will, the testator died in 1965 and his wife executed a Sale Deed in favour of the Appellant leading to the son and grandson of the deceased instituting a suit for declaration that the Sale Deed in favour of the Petitioner was void and also sought delivery of possession.
The Trial Court held that the property given to the testator’s wife was in the nature of maintenance and such a pre-existing right shall enlarge into full estate. The First Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the decision of the Trial Court. The High Court reversed the concurrent findings only on a question of law. Hence, the case was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, observed, “It is important to note that except, Karmi (supra), the decisions in Bhura, Gumpha and Sadhu Singh (supra) are all by two Judge benches. The larger perspective in which Section 14 was interpreted holistically commenced from Karmi and was followed in many subsequent cases. Some of the decisions in the same line are Gaddam Ramakrishnareddy, Jagan Singh, Shivdev Kaur, Ranvir Dewan and Jogi Ram (supra).”
The Court, therefore, directed the Registry to place the Order along with the Appeal paper book before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or constituting an appropriate larger bench for reconciling the principles laid down in various judgments of the Court and for restating the law on the interplay between sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Accordingly, the Apex Court referred the question to a larger Bench.
Cause Title- Tej Bhan (D) Through LR. & Ors. v. Ram Kishan (D) Through LRs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 945)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, AOR Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Advocates Sachin Jain, Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Nishi Sangtani, Vishal, and Subhadra Dwivedi.
Respondents: AOR Archit Upadhayay, Advocates Sunil Kr Mittal, Anshul Mittal, Kshitij Mittal, Sameer Dawar, Harshit Vashisht, Avinash Kapoor, Khushi Aggarwal, Sarthak Tagra, Shivdeep Tripathi, and Lakshay Seth.
