Ram Charan vs Sukhram - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1083

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1083

SANJAY KAROL, JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Ram Charan – Appellant
Versus
Sukhram – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Vastvikta Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Goyal, Adv. Mr. Aditya, Adv. Mr. Vijant, Adv. Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashok Anand, AOR Mr. Anand Singh, Adv. Mr. Aakash Kakade, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 1st July 2022 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in Second Appeal No. 465 of 2009, whereby it affirmed the judgment and decree dated 21st April 2009 passed by the Second Additional District Judge (FTC)¹ [Hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’] Surajpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 1A/08 and the judgment and decree dated 29th February 2008 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class-2, Surajpur, Sarguja (C.G.)² [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’] in Civil Suit No. 21A/08, dismissing the suit of partition filed by the appellant-plaintiffs.

3. The short question involved in this appeal is whether a tribal woman (or her legal heirs) would be entitled to an equal share in her ancestral property or not. One would think that in this day and age, where great strides have been made in realizing the constitutional goal of equality, this Court would not need to intervene for equality between the successors of a common ancestor and the same should be a given, irrespective of their biological differences, but it is not so.

4. The facts lie in a n