Tej Bhan (D) Through LR. & Ors. vs Ram Kishan (D) Through LRs. & Ors.
Background
A Hindu testator, Kanwar Bhan, died in 1965 leaving a will that gave his wife only a restricted "life estate" (with no right to sell or mortgage) in certain land, while other property went absolutely to his son and grandsons. The wife later sold the land to the appellant's predecessor. The son and grandson sued, arguing the sale was void because the wife's interest was merely a limited life estate under the will and she had no right to sell it. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court, applying the Supreme Court's landmark 1977 ruling in V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy, held the wife's restricted interest had automatically matured into full ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, so the sale was valid, but the High Court reversed this, following a different line of precedent (Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike).
Decision Breakdown
Rather than deciding the appeal itself, this two-judge bench issued an order documenting that at least 18 of the Supreme Court's own judgments over the decades have taken inconsistent, sometimes directly conflicting positions on how Section 14(1) (which enlarges a Hindu woman's limited property interest into full ownership) interacts with Section 14(2) (which preserves genuinely new, restricted grants such as those made by a will). The Court traced two competing lines of authority: one treating Tulasamma's principles as governing broadly, and another (originating in Karmi v. Amru and continued in Gumpha and Sadhu Singh) reading wills and similar instruments more narrowly. Concluding that only a larger bench could authoritatively reconcile these conflicting three-judge and two-judge bench rulings, the Court directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate larger bench, without deciding whose sale/succession claim prevails.
Lesson Learnt
Even after nearly seven decades, a landmark law meant to protect Hindu women's property rights can remain genuinely unsettled at the level of the Supreme Court's own precedents, so a family property dispute turning on an old will or maintenance grant to a woman may not have a final, predictable answer until a larger bench resolves the conflicting case law.