V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy
Supreme Court of India, 17 March 1977, 3 judges, 1977 AIR 1944; 1977 SCR (3) 261; 1977 SCC (3) 99
Property given to a Hindu widow in lieu of maintenance, even under an instrument restricting her estate, becomes her absolute property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act; Section 14(2) does not apply.
Facts
Tulasamma's husband died in 1931 while joint with his step-brother, the respondent. She obtained a decree for maintenance against him, and in execution a compromise of 1949, certified by the court, allotted her certain properties for maintenance with only a life interest and no power of alienation, the properties to revert to the respondent after her death. She remained in possession when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, and in 1960 and 1961 leased and sold parts of the property. The respondent sued for a declaration that the alienations were not binding beyond her lifetime. The Munsif decreed the suit, the District Judge, Nellore dismissed it, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in second appeal restored the decree, holding that Section 14(2) applied.
Questions before the Court
- Where property is given to a Hindu female in lieu of maintenance under an instrument that restricts her interest, does Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 apply?
- Did Tulasamma's limited interest under the 1949 compromise become an absolute estate when the Act came into force?
What the Court held
- Section 14(1) and its Explanation must be construed widely to advance the Act's purpose of making a Hindu female a full owner. Section 14(2) is in the nature of a proviso or exception and must be construed strictly, so as not to defeat Section 14(1).
- Section 14(2) applies only where an instrument, decree, order or award creates a new title for the first time, without any pre-existing right. It does not apply where the instrument merely declares or recognises a pre-existing right.
- A Hindu widow's right to maintenance out of joint family property is a pre-existing right against that property. Property allotted in lieu of maintenance satisfies that right, so Section 14(1) applies and any restriction in the instrument is ignored.
- Tulasamma, in possession when the Act came into force, became full owner, and her later alienations were valid. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's decree set aside and the District Judge's dismissal of the suit restored.
Why it matters
The judgment settles the conflict among High Courts on Section 14(1) and (2) of the Hindu Succession Act by holding that property received by a female Hindu in lieu of maintenance or at a partition, in recognition of a pre-existing right, becomes her absolute property despite any restriction in the instrument. Both opinions declared several contrary High Court decisions wrong, and Fazal Ali, J. overruled the Division Bench decision in Naraini Devi v. Ramo Devi.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“In the circumstances, we reach the conclusion that since in the present case the properties in question were acquired by the appellant under the compromise in lieu or satisfaction of her right of maintenance, it is sub-section (1 ) and not sub-section (2) of section 14 which would be applicable and hence the appellant must be deemed to have become full owner of the properties notwithstanding that the compromise prescribed a limited interest for her in his properties.”
“It excepts certain kinds of acquisition of property by a Hindu female from the operation of sub-section (1) and being in the nature of an exception to a provision which is calculated to achieve a social purpose by bringing about change in the social and economic position of women in Hindu society, it must be construed strictly so as to impinge as little as possible on the broad sweep of the ameliorative provision contained in sub-section (1 ).”
“Sub-section (2) of s. 14 applies to instruments, decrees, awards, gifts etc. which create independent and new titles in favour of the females for the first time and has no application where the instrument concerned merely seeks to confirm, endorse, declare or recognise preexisting rights.”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. V. Sesha Reddi (Dead) by L.Rs.
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 1360 of 1968
- Decided
- 17 March 1977
- Bench
- P.N. Bhagwati, A.C. Gupta, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali
- Opinions
- Unanimous in result. The judgment of Bhagwati and A.C. Gupta, JJ. was delivered by Bhagwati, J., agreeing with Fazal Ali, J.'s conclusion for its own reasons; Fazal Ali, J. gave a separate opinion.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:
Question 1, Legal Current Affairs: September 2026
With reference to Ganapati (Dead) by his LRs v. Prabhakar, decided by the Supreme Court on 22 September 2026, consider the following statements: 1. The widow's interest in her husband's share arose under Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, as a limited interest. 2. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 enlarged that limited interest into absolute ownership. 3. The widow had to sue for and obtain a partition before her interest could become absolute. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A. 2 only
- B. 1 and 3 only
- C. 1 and 2 only
- D. 1, 2 and 3
Show the answer
C. 1 and 2 only
The Court (2026 INSC 1033, Bhatti and Anjaria, JJ.) held that the widow held her husband's interest subject to Section 3(2) of the 1937 Act and that Section 14(1) of the 1956 Act made it absolute; partition is not a sine qua non for her to enjoy the right as absolute owner. It relied on V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy.