1

ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

MALAPPURAM CENTRE, KERALA

GCT-2-Assignment
Hindu Law-II

Topic- Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act : Revolutionary Change

in Hindu Women’s Right to Property

Submitted To Submitted By-

Mr. Shahnawaz Ahmad Vaibhav Teotia
Assistant prof. 18Ballb03
Department of law
 2

Contents-
S.No. Particulars Pg.No

1 Introduction 3
2 3
Position of Ownership Right To Ownership Of Property
Before Hindu Succession Act, 1956
3 The Hindu Women’s Right To Property Act, 1937 4
4 Judicial trends towards Stridhana and women’s estate 4
5 5
Effect of Passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on the
Right of Property of a Hindu Female- section 14
6 Section 14(1)- 6
7 Possession 7
8 7
Acquisition
9 7
Impact of S.14 of HAS over section 2 of Hindu Widow’s
Remarriage Act, 1856
10 Section 14(2) 8
11 Recent Case Laws 8
12 9
Conclusion
13 10
Bibliography
 3

Introduction-
The Indian Constitution envisages woman, as a citizen of India, will be treated equal to man in all
aspects of life. However, in patriarchal society, she has always been treated as an inferior creature.
This inferior status exists not only in home and society but also in matter of privileges and rights.
The most she is made to feel this inequality and inferiority regarding her right to property. The
patriarchal Hindu society disregards women's right to property and considers her inferior in social
and economic aspects. Manu, the first law giver also stipulated; “A women must be dependent
upon her father in childhood, upon her husband in youth and upon her sons in old age. She should
never be free. Thus, with the independence, the Constitution of India desires to secure justice in
form of social, economic and political and to secure equality of status and opportunity. Hence, to
abide constitutional mandate and make women economic empower, the then government enacted
Hindu Succession Act in 1956.

Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act 1956 introduces fundamental changes in the concept of
woman's property. Under the classical Hindu law, there were various restrictions on a woman's
ownership of property and her right to dispose it. Before 1956, women's property was divided into
two categories first, property of which she is the absolute owner i.e stridhan and secondly, property
of which she is the limited owner i.e her woman’s estate.

Position Of Woman’s Right To Ownership Of Property Before Hindu

Succession Act, 1956
➢ Stridhana and Non-Stridhana
The property of a Hindu female was categorized under two heads: ‘stridhana’ and ‘non-stridhana’.
The Bombay High Court has held that stridhana includes the property received by way of gifts and
presents given to a woman by her parents, husband, close relation of parents or husband, either at
the time of marriage or on other occasions or at the time of the performance of ceremonies, of
‘sulka’ or bride price, of property acquired by her own exertions and liability or by adverse
possession, of bequests from stranger or relations ,of money or property given to her in lieu of
maintenance or its arrears and of savings or purchases made with stridhan. Non-stridhana
comprised what she inherited from a male or female relation.1

The stridhana was further divided into ‘saudayika’ and ‘non-saudayika’ as regards the power of a
woman to alienate it. The former included gifts, presents or property received by way of bequests
from parents and other relations, conferred on her an absolute power of alienation, irrespective of
her marital status. However, over the latter category, which included property received from non-
relations, the consent of the husband was necessary before a woman could alienate it.

The non-stridhana property included the one inherited from a male or female relation including
the husband, or property received at the time of partition. A woman was a limited owner of such
property and could not alienate it as her independent property, but otherwise she had complete

1 Paras Diwan, , Family Law, 457 , Allahabad Law Agency, 11th edition , 2018
 4

powers to enjoy the said property. However, during her lifetime no person had any vested right of
succession in such property and the limited interest of the woman in a non-stridhana property
terminated on her death or remarriage.

The Hindu Women’s Right To Property Act, 1937

The Hindu women’s right to Property Act 1937 modified the old Hindu law as to confirm greater
rights on women. It conferred upon the widow, right of inheritance to her husband’s property, even
where the husband left male issues. She was also given power to claim partition. The main
objective of passing of the 1937 Act was that after the death of her husband, the widow should not
have to be dependent on others for her sustenance. Under the classical law she only had the
maintenance rights out of the property and the inheritance rights from the joint family property
were denied to her. Under the 1937 Act, a widow got inheritance rights ‘in lieu of maintenance’
and her right to claim maintenance was extinguished. However, the journey towards grant of
absolute right of property to a woman was still undergoing and it was only after the passing of
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 that the absolute right to property was given to a female i n its true
sense.2

Judicial trend towards women’s estate and Stridhan3

The judicial view regarding women’s has also changed after the enactment of the HAS as
previously, in Bhugwandee Doobey v. Myna Baee, the privy council held that a property that is
acquired by a woman from her husband is not her Stridhan and on the death of that woman, such
property will devolve upon the heirs of her husband and not her heirs.

Also in Sheo Shankar v. Devi, the privy council held that a property which obtained by a daughter
from her mother will be the Stridhan of the mother and not the Stridhan of daughter, and on the
death of her mother, such property will devolve upon the heirs of the mother and not her heirs.

But after the commencement of the HAS, the judicial attitude towards women’s estate and stridan
has also changed as the Supreme Court in the case of Gangamma v. G. Nagarathnamma and
Ors. has affirmed that the amplitude of Section 14(1) is very large and it includes within its ambit
every kind of property that has been possessed by a Hindu female on of the date of commencement
of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Further in Santosh v. Saarswathibai, the ambit of Section 14(1) of HAS was expanded to include
not only the land which is in the possession of the Hindu female, but also the land over which she
has the right to possess.

2 Seema Dalal, “Ownership of property by a Hindu Female: An overview” , International Journal of Advanced
Educational Research, Volume 2; Issue 5; September 2017.

3 Ibid
 5

Effect of Passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on the Right of

Property of a Hindu Female- section 14
Section 14 of the act contains revolutionary provisions in respect of Hindu women’s proprietary
rights and is a step towards gender justice. The effect of the rule laid down in this section is to
abrogate the stringent provisions against the proprietors rights of a female which are often regarded
as evidence of the perpetual tutelage and to recognise her status as independent and absolute owner
of the property.

The distinction between stridhan and women’s estate no longer exists. After the
commencement of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 , any property owned by a female Hindu is her
absolute property under section 14 of the act except that property which is covered by section 14
(2) . The Hindu Succession act overwrites inter-alia the old law on the subject of stridhan are in
respect of all property possessed by a female whether acquired by her before or after
commencement of this Act and section 14 of this act declare that all such property shall be held
by her as full owner. The act confers full heritable capacity on the female and this section dispense
with the traditional limitation on the power of female to hold and transmit property.4 Section 14
provides here asunder:

Section 14: Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property5

(1) property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or a 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 the marriage, or by purchase or by prescription or in any other manner whatsoever and
also any such property held by her as stridhan 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 Act provided wider definition to the term ‘property’ and the distinction between the stridhana
type of property and non-stridhana type of property was completely abolished. The Act further
abolished the different modes of the acquisition of property and of its devolution.

4 Rk Agrawal, Hindu Law, 294,, Central Law Agency, 26th edi. 2019
5 Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956
 6

Section 14 provides that for the purpose of maturity of the limited estate into an absolute estate of
a Hindu female it is necessary that:
a) She possessed the property as a limited owner; and
b) She had not remarried.
Hereafter, an attempt has been made to explain the various terms as used under Section 14 and as
interpreted by the
judiciary while deciding the issues arising out of the application of the said provision.

Section 14 (1) :

Possession-
The term used in Section 14 is ‘possessed by’ and not ‘in possession of a Hindu female’ which
indicates a possession in law that is a valid title to the property. As explained by the Supreme
Court it must be a possession or a right to claim possession that can be sustained in law for the
application of Section 14. In Badri Prasad V kanso Devi 6 , are Hindu widow inherited the
property under Hindu women’s right to Property Act 1937 from her husband after his death full
stop later on there was partition in the family and consequential arbitration about the division of
shares. An account of this arbitration she received a share in the property and remained in its
position at the date of commencement of this act it was held that such property became her
absolute property within the meaning of section 14 (1)7
Actual physical possession without the right of ownership would not act the application of this
Act. The Supreme Court of India, in a case where a Hindu female was in actual physical
possession of the estate, but as a trespasser, has held that her possession will not enlarge into an
absolute ownership. Moreover, a mere actual physical possession, without limited ownership,
would not convert it into an absolute ownership.

In Gullapalli v Vishmalapala8, the supreme court observed that where a widow was placed in
position of certain joint family property in lieu of her right to maintenance, Her right to the
property in question became enlarged into an absolute estate under section 14(1). If the woman
had sold away the property prior to the act and the property has keys due to be in her possession
even prior to the act by reason of such sale such property cannot attract the application of section
14. Thus, where a Hindu , widow was entitled to maintenance only before the commencement of
the Hindu succession act 1956 and she was not in possession of that property taken over such
maintenance she does not acquire absolute ownership.
However, a temporary loss of possession by a widow before the passing of the Act of 1956, which
has been regained after Transfer of the limited interest, but before 17 June 1956, would not
adversely affect the conversion of the limited ownership, into a full ownership under the Act.

6 AIR 1970 SC 1963

7 Supra note 2
8 AIR 1978 SC 362
 7

In Gorachand Mukherjee V Malabika Dutta , the Calcutta High Court held that where widow
who had no pre-existing right of maintenance, Was given right of possession to the suit property
till her death, it could not be said that the right was given to her in lieu of maintenance and as such
her life interest cannot ripen into absolute title under section 14(1) as in absence of pre-existing
right.

Acquisition of property

The term ‘property’ has been given a very wide connotation under Section 14 and the provision
expressly provides that it would include property acquired in any manner whatsoever. As such the
connotation given to the term ‘property’ under the Act is very comprehensive. The words “any
property” are large enough to cover both movable and immovable property acquired by a female
Hindu by inheritance or devise etc from any person , whether a relative or not.

As such property inherited by a widow as limited estate from her husband or father-in-law or her
share in the coparcenary property that her deceased husband has held in the Mitakshara
coparcenary would be converted into her absolute estate after the passing of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956. Similarly, a limited interest in a property received by a Hindu Women under a device
of Will or settlement will be covered by the Explanation to Section 14 and would convert into her
absolutely owned property. However, it is to be seen that subject to what conditions the property
has been transferred under a Will or an instrument. If the property has expressly been given to the
female only as a limited/life estate then as held by the Supreme Court it would remain a limited
estate and would not mature into her absolute interest9

Alienations by Widow prior to Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Female possessing property as limited state could eliminate the property only for legal necessity
before this Act. If she had transferred the property without such necessity, transfer can be declared
to be invalid. Now we have to consider the effect of this act on such transfers. When the woman
has sold away the property before the Act, It seems she had parted with it’s possession Off the
property and if that be not so she obviously cannot hold it in future either as full owner or as
limited owner and section 14(1) of the Act cannot be applied. 10

Surrender Prior to this Act

Surrender is a voluntary act of self-effacement by the widow having the same consequences as her
death, in opening up the succession to the next ideas of the last male holder. Surrender by a widow
of her rights in the property is not an act of alienation by the . Her surrender merely accelerates
the succession and the next reversioner automatically becomes and title to the property as if the
widow had suffered a physical death.Therefore,where the surrender is valid, the widow or her heirs

9 Supra note 1 , at 460

10 Supra note 4 , at 297
 8

are not entitled to get back the property which has already vested , in the husband’s next heirs. The
words ‘ property possessed’ used in this section can not cover the case where by virtue of surrender
the property passed in favour of next reversionary heirs.

Impact of S.14 of HAS over section 2 of Hindu Widow’s Remarriage

Act, 1856
According to section 2 of Hindu widows remarriage Act 1956, the property which a widows get
from her husband as a limited owner ceases upon her remarriage, to be her property. The question
arises whether such property is also her absolute property under section 14 (1) of the Hindu
Succession Act. In Gajadhari Devi v Gokul, it was held by the supreme court that if she remarries
after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, she will incur no disqualification and her
state shall not before featured as contemplated by section 2 of the Hindu Widow's Remarriage
Act.11

Section 14(2)-Section 14(2) deals with the situation where only a limited estate in a property
has expressly been conferred to a woman under a Will or an Award of the court.

Thus, it can be said that Section 14(2) is an exception to the general rule as provided under Section
14(1) and protects the right of a person to settle his property in accordance with his wishes. Since,
Section 14(1) is an enabling, benevolent and empowering provision, as such, it has to be liberally
construed and as a corollary, Section 14(2) which is in the nature of limiting the scope of Section
14(1) requires to be construed strictly. According to Section 14(2), where a Hindu female receives
only a limited interest in a property under a decree of a court or an Award or under a Gift or a
Will, such limited interest would be covered by Section 14(2) and would not mature into her
absolute estate. 12

In the case of V Tulasamma Reddy v V Sesha Reddy , the Supreme Court has expressed
displeasure over the incomprehensive language of Section 14(1) and Section 14(2). The Court
observed that it is difficult to decide those cases, on the basis of the above said provisions of the
law, where the property was received by a Hindu female in lieu of her maintenance and the
instrument granting such property provides for a restricted estate for her in the said property. The
Court further held that the real test to determine whether a case falls under Cl. (1) or Cl. (2), is
that, irrespective of whether a woman receives the property under a gift or a Will, if she receives
the property in recognition or in lieu of her pre-existing rights, then it is covered by Section 14(1)
and if she has received it because the grantor wanted her to have a limited interest, then Section
14(2) shall cover the said settlement. 13

Object of Section 14(2)- the object of sub section 2 of section 14 is only to remove the disability
of Hindu women imposed by law and not to interfere with contracts and grants etc., By which a

11 Supra note 4 , at 296

12 Supra note 2
13 Ibid
 9

restricted right is created in her favour. Subsection (2) is based upon the principle of sanctity of
contracts and grants.

Recent Case laws-

1-Jayalakshmi Ammal V kaliaperumal

It was held that the ambit of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, must be confined
to cases where property is acquired by a female Hindu for the first time. As a grant without any
pre-existing right under a gift, will, instrument, decree, order or award, the terms of which
prescribe a restricted estate in the property. … Where, however, property is acquired by a Hindu
female at a partition or in lieu of her right to maintenance it is in virtue of a pre-existing right and
such acquisition would not be within the scope and ambit of sub-s.(2) even if the instrument,
decree, order or award allotting the property prescribes a restricted estate in the property.14

2-In the matter Of Ajit Kaur @ Surjit Kaur v. Darshan Singh(Dead) Through Lrs.& Ors., the
Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced that for a woman claiming rights to the subject property u/s
14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, having a mere possession is not enough, the possession should
be such which falls under any of the devise referred to in the explanation of Section 14(1). 15

Conclusion
The Indian woman has traditionally been kept at an inferior position vis-à-vis her male counterpart.
There were given numerous justifications for her inferior position. However, the real intention has
always been to keep the patriarchal hegemony alive. The birth of a son has always been an occasion
of rejoice. It could be said that during the tribal ages, the necessity of physical strength to protect
one’s own tribe gave importance to the desire of the sons. But, in a civilized society, the woman
plays an equal and sometimes a greater role, as compared to a man, in upholding the fabric of the
institution of family and at a larger scale, of the society in whole. In this background it is the
demand of the law that women should be conferred their due recognition and share in the property,
similar to what a male gets. The Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is a revolutionary
step, which has been taken in this regard by the legislature. By accruing absolute rights in the
property acquired by a female, the Section is a salutary step in ameliorating the condition of the
Hindu women. However, still the demand of the women of their legal rights provided to them
under Section 14 of the Act, are not taken in a natural and healthy overtone. The conservative
Hindu society perceives any such demand from a female as selfish and hyper ambitious on the part
of the female. A lady who wants her rights under Section 14 is considered as ungrateful and share

14 AIR 2014 Mad 185 , www.ssconline.com

15 2019 SCC OnLine SC 470, www.scconline.com
 10

grabber of her male relatives. Thus, the reformative legislative or judicial interventions apart, what
the need of the hour is, that the society should be encouraged and made aware to

Acknowledge, accept, praise and repay the contribution of onehalf of its constituent and endeavors
to grant equal rights to a woman from her conception in the womb till her death, and even after
her death, should be carried on.

Bibliography-
Books

1- Diwan Paras, Family Law, Allahabad Law Agency, eleventh edition, 2019
2- Dr.Agrawal RK, Hindu Law, Central Law Agency, 26th edition ,2019

Articles-

1- Dalal Seema , Ownership of property by a Hindu Female: An overview,

International Journal of Advanced Educational Research, Volume 2; Issue 5;
September 2017.

Website-
1- www.scconline.com