Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.
Ram Charan and Others - Appellants
Versus
Sukhram and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9537 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 5559 of 2023]
Decided On : 17-07-2025
(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 2(2) – Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 – Section 6 – Partition suit – Entitlement of a tribal woman or her legal heirs to equal share in ancestral property – Section 2(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, unequivocally excludes from its application, Scheduled Tribes – For application of a custom to be shown, it has to be proved, but it was not in present case – Parties to instant lis are neither governed by Hindu nor Muslim laws and would be covered by Section 6 of 1875 Act – Right having been accrued in favour of appellant-plaintiffs’ mother upon death of her father, which was approximately 30 years before filing of plaint became crystallized and would not be affected by the fact that Act was no longer in Statute Book. (Paras 12, 13, 15 and 17)
(B) Property Law – Partition – Law by excluding daughter from participating in coparcenary ownership not only contributes to her discrimination on the ground of gender but also has led to oppression and negation of her fundamental right of equality guaranteed by Constitution – 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 – This is a question of violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India – There appears to be no rational nexus or reasonable classification for only males to be granted succession over property of their forebears and not women, more so in the case where no prohibition to such effect can be shown to be prevalent as per law – Unless otherwise prescribed in law, denying female heir a right in property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which law should ensure to weed out – Appellant-plaintiffs are entitled to equal share in property. (Paras 19, 20, 26, 27, 28 and 29)
Facts of the case:
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 same should be a given, irrespective of their biological differences, but it is not so.
Findings of Court:
Granted that no such custom of female succession could be established by appellant-plaintiffs, but nonetheless it is also equally true that a custom to the contrary also could not be shown in the slightest, much less proved. That being the case, denying Dhaiya her share in her father’s property, when the custom is silent, would violate her right to equality vis-a-vis her brothers or those of her legal heirs vis-a-vis their cousin.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
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 narrow compass. The appellants- plaintiffs are the legal heirs of one Dhaiya, a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. They sought partition of a property belonging to their maternal grandfather, Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond. Their mother was one of the six children - five sons and one daughter, stating that their mother is entitled to an equal share in the scheduled property. The cause of action arose in October 1992 when defendant Nos.6 to 16 refused to make a partition. The appellant-plaintiffs approached the Trial Court seeking a declaration of title and partition of the suit property.
5. By judgment dated 29th February 2008, the suit was dismissed holding as follows:
12. Thus, from the analysis of the above evidence it is made clear that the plaintiff has not made the statement of even any witness for providing their custom. Apart from this, they have also not made the claim of the fact of governing their custom from the caste tradition in their contentions. They are telling themselves Hindu and claiming that they are governed under the Hindu Succession Act, which is a specific provision in sub-section 2 of section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 that the member of the Scheduled Tribe shall not be governed by this Act. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have failed to prove suit issues No. 1 to 3 in their favor. Resultantly, their conclusion is made in the not certified.”
(Emphasis supplied)
6. The First Appellate Court, by its judgment dated 21st April 2009 concurred wit
(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 ....
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.
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.
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.
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....
(1) If a property of a male Hindu dying intestate is a self-acquired property or obtained in partition of a coparcenary or a family property, same would devolve by inheritance and not by survivorship....
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
