IMPORTANT POINT
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.

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 ancestor had two sons named Mardan and Puni Ram. The sons and legal heirs of Puni Ram set the law in motion, seeking a declaration that the suit property situated at village Bagri Pali, measuring 13.95 acres bearing Khasra No. 26, belongs to them and for a permanent injunction against the respondents.

2.2 The following is the family tree:

2.3 The dispute came before the Court of Civil Judge Class-2, Sakti, District Bilaspur, wherein six issues were framed. A perusal of the judgment shows that questions 2 to 6 were questions of fact. It was held as follows:

2.3.1 Relying on the testimony and cross-examination of PW1, Anandram is now represented by the present appellants and also the statement of DW1, Daduram, it was held that both the plaintiffs and defendants “abide and follow the Hindu principles of law”.

2.3.2 The dispute regarding the death of Mardan was resolved with the Court observing that he had indeed died prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. To return such a finding, reliance was placed on the evidence of PW1, Ugrasen PW2 and Karamaha PW3. It was further stated that DW1 himself, in his cross-examination, accepted such a fact.

2.3.3 Qua the possession of the suit property, it was held that post the death of Mardan in 1951, Puni Ram, father of the plaintiff, took possession. Any right possessed by Mardan would not have transferred over to his daughters as prior to the HSA 1956, a daughter does not receive any property upon the death of her father.

2.3.4 In conclusion, it was held that the defendants did not have any right of ownership over the property, which originally belonged to Mardan and that the successors of Puni Ram had the right over the said property. It was ordered that the defendants would not interfere in the ownership of the plaintiffs.

2.4 The defendants, aggrieved by the findings summarised above, appealed the judgment. The First Appellate Court agreed with the findings arrived by the Court below in as much as that both parties did indeed follow the Hindu Religion and that the death of Mardan was prior to coming into force of the HSA, 1956, and as a result, the daughters of Mardan had no right over the subject property.

2.5 Further aggrieved, the matter was carried to the High Court in the Second Appeal. The substantial questions of law framed are as under:

1. Whether the parties follow the principle of Hindu Law and have been following as on today?

2. Whether Mardan and Puni Ram in succession the property which they had received and from the said property the income which accrued from the same both Mardan and Puni Ram purchased other property?

3. Whether the death of Mardan was done in the year 1951 since then the property of Muni Ram in succession has received and at present the Plaintiffs are in use, occup