Back
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL
Tirith Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Daduram – Respondent
The Supreme Court demonstrated judicial activism by strictly interpreting Articles 341 and 342, affirming that Scheduled Tribes, like the notified Sawara tribe, remain outside the Hindu Succession Act's purview unless de-notified by Presidential order, overturning lower courts' "hinduisation" findings. (!) (!) (!) (!) This preserved constitutional lists' sanctity while invoking equity for a 1951 intestate succession, applying "justice, equity, and good conscience" under historical law to partially favor female heirs. (!) (!) Expanding judicial power, the Court reiterated directives to the Central Government to reconsider exemptions, amend the Act for tribal women's equal inheritance rights under Articles 14 and 21, bridging legislative gaps for gender parity. (!) (!) Appeal dismissed, showcasing proactive constitutional guardianship. (!) (128 words) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KAROL, J.
THE CHALLENGE
1. This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in Second Appeal No. 270 of 2003, dated 6th February 2019 and it raises the question as to whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘HSA, 1956’] could be applied to the parties to the instant lis? The Courts below i.e. the First Appellate Court [The Court of Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Bilaspur] in Civil Appeal No.09A/2001 vide judgment dated 27th January, 2003 and the Trial Court [The Court of Civil Judge Class-2, Sakti, District Bilaspur] in Civil Suit No. 131A of 1995, by judgment dated 16th December, 2000 found the appellants to be ‘sufficiently hinduised', having given up their customs as part of a tribal community and therefore are governed by Hindu law, and thereby the respondents herein do not have any rights over the property originally belonging to Mardan.
BRIEF FACTS
2. Brief facts as emanating from the record are:-
2.1 This dispute, at the heart of it, pertains to ownership of land between two sides of the same family, with a common ancestor by the name of Chuchrung. This common
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot apply to scheduled tribes – For a tribe to be notified as a scheduled tribe, notification to that effect has to be issued and vice versa.
The Hindu Succession Act does not apply to aboriginal tribes; inheritance follows customary law unless proven otherwise, emphasizing the principle of justice, equity, and good conscience.
(1) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 do not apply on tribals.(2) Tribal Succession – Law by excluding daughter from participating in coparcenary ownership not only contributes to her discrimination on the ....
Custom – Custom evolves by conduct – Customs too, like law, cannot remain stuck in time and others cannot be allowed to take refuge in customs or hide behind them to deprive others of their right.
Section 2 (2) of Hindu Succession Act which is Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to members of any Scheduled Tribe within meaning of cla....
Members of Scheduled Tribes who follow Hindu customs can invoke provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce, negating the exclusion principle under Section 2(2).
The burden of proof for establishing a custom rests on the party asserting it, and clear and unambiguous evidence is required to prove the custom. The court emphasized the need for continuity, certai....
Members of Scheduled Tribe shall be governed by Hindu law in the matter of succession.
Daughters are ineligible to inherit under Mitakshara Law prior to 1956, affirming that property succession is limited to male heirs in such cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
