Supreme Court of India· 22 September 2026

Does section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 apply only where an instrument confers an independent title, not where it recognises a pre-existing right?

GANAPATI (DEAD) BY HIS LRS v. PRABHAKAR & OTHERS

2026 INSC 1033 · CIVIL APPEAL NO. 660 OF 2019
Coram: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti · Justice N.V. Anjaria

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.14(1) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies only where an instrument confers an independent title, not where it recognises a pre-existing right.

No, it applies only where an instrument confers an independent title. Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not apply where the instrument merely recognises or confirms a pre-existing right, such as a Hindu widow's share under the 1937 Act; such a right is instead governed by section 14(1) and becomes absolute. (¶13, 16)

Headnote

Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 — s.3(2) — Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — s.14(1) — s.14(2) — Widow's limited estate — Absolute ownership — Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — s.14(1) — Widow's limited interest — Blossoms into absolute ownership — Held: A Hindu widow's limited interest under section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 blossoms into absolute ownership under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, once she remains in possession. Partition between her and the surviving coparcener is not a sine qua non for this transformation. (¶13, 15) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — s.14(1) vs s.14(2) — Pre-existing right — Not a fresh grant — Held further: Section 14(2) applies only where an instrument confers an independent, new title on a Hindu female for the first time, not where it merely recognises a pre-existing right such as a widow's share under the 1937 Act. Kashibai's registered Will was accordingly valid and the Civil Appeal is dismissed. (¶13, 16, 17)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 13The decisions on the point are to the effect that a Hindu widow, stepping into her husband’s shoes, holds the properties by satisfying the requirement of Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956. Even assuming the Defendants have failed to prove the factum of the oral partition pleaded by them, the necessary corollary in law under the Act, 1937, read with Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956, remains intact and unaffected. The consistent view of this Court is to recognise the right of a Hindu widow as blossoming into an absolute right, except in cases that fall under Section 14(2) of the Act, 1956. Kashibai held her husband’s interest subject to the restrictions of Section 3(2) of the Act, 1937. Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956 takes away the effect of Section 3(2) of the Act, 1937.

Paragraph 16For the above reasons, the impugned Judgment has applied the admitted circumstances to the precedents nearer to the case at hand and has allowed the Second Appeal. The High Court’s exercise of jurisdiction further conforms to the grounds available under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Acts & Sections

s.14(1) Hindu Succession Act, 1956s.14(2) Hindu Succession Act, 1956s.3(2) Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937s.100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of GANAPATI (DEAD) BY HIS LRS v. PRABHAKAR & OTHERS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Is a Hindu widow's limited interest under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 absolute ownership under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, once she remains in possession?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections