The recent Supreme Court ruling emphasized that for a Hindu woman to assert rights according to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, she must demonstrate possession of the property in question.

Section 14 stipulates that property owned by a female Hindu will be deemed her complete ownership. "Any property held by a female Hindu, regardless of acquisition before or after the Act's commencement, shall be regarded as her full and unrestricted possession," as articulated in Section 14(1).

The case under consideration originated as a civil appeal arising from a lawsuit filed in Kerala. The trial court, appellate court, and the High Court collectively ruled against the plaintiffs, holding that the woman from whom they are attempting to derive rights had never held possession of the property. Consequently, Section 14(1) did not apply.

"Section 14, Sub-Section (1), does not find relevance in this instance. Essential to Section 14, Sub-Section (1), is possession of the property," noted the bench, composed of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia.

The bench referred to the decision in Ram Vishal (deceased) by legal representatives v. Jagan Nath & Another, documented in (2004) 9 SCC 302, which established that possession is a fundamental prerequisite to uphold a claim under Sub-Section (1) of Section 14 in the 1956 Act. The precedent stated:

"Consistent with previous court rulings, a pre-existing entitlement is indispensable to grant complete ownership under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Hindu woman must not merely possess the property; she must have gained ownership. Such acquisition could be through inheritance, partition, maintenance-related considerations, gift, personal efforts, purchase, or prescription."

The bench also offered insights on the scope of Special Leave jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.

"While it is true that leave was granted in this case, the established legal stance persists that, even after leave is granted and an appeal is admitted, appellants must demonstrate exceptional and specific circumstances to overturn the findings. Alternatively, it must be evident that severe injustice will result if the challenged decision is not intervened."

The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment.

Case: M Sivadasan (Deceased) represented by Legal Representatives vs. A. Soudamini (Deceased) represented by Legal Representatives and others.