The court determined that daughters of Scheduled Tribes are entitled to succession rights in ancestral property, overriding discriminatory provisions in the Hindu Succession Act, thereby enforcing constitutional equality.

ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

For convenience of exposition, this order is divided in the following parts: -

INDEX

(1) The Challenge

(2) Submissions by the petitioner

(3) Submissions by the respondents

(4) Analysis, Discussions and Findings

(5) Conclusion

(6) A Way Forward

The Challenge :-

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, ‘the Board’) whereby the revision petition submitted by the respondents under Section 230 of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955 (for short, ‘the Act of 1955’) was allowed, which was preferred against the impugned order dated 24.07.2023 passed by the Sub Division Officer, Chaksu (for short, ‘the SDO’), whereby the application submitted by the respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was dismissed and the order dated 24.07.2023 has been quashed and set aside.

Submissions by the petitioner:-

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to Meena Community and is a daughter of Ram Prasad. Counsel submits that the petitioner was the only child of her father having no brother. Her father executed a gift deed in favour of the defendant-respondent No. 2. Counsel submits that the petitioner challenged the validity of the said gift deed dated 12.03.2018 by way of fling a Civil Suit before the Court of Additional District Judge No.11, Jaipur Metro-I (Headquarter Sanganer), wherein an application was submitted by the respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the suit on the technical count that in the absence of a prior declaration in favour of the petitioner, the Civil Suit with regard to cancellation of gift deed, is not maintainable. Counsel submits that the said application submitted by the respondent was allowed by the Civil Court vide order dated 27.03.2023 granting liberty to the petitioner to seek a declaration of her Khatedari Rights from the competent Revenue Court. Counsel submits that pursuant thereto, the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration of her rights in the ancestral property before the Court of SDO. However, during pendency of the said suit, the respondent submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in the light of the provisions contained under Section 2(2) of the HINDU SUCCESSION ACT , 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956) on the ground that the provisions of the Act of 1956 are not applicable to the members of Scheduled Tribes, as defined under Clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India, unless a notification to this effect is issued by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. The said application submitted by the respondent was also rejected by the SDO vide impugned order dated 24.07.2023, against which the respondents submitted a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 09.06.2025 wherein it has been held by the Board that since, the petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Tribe (Meena Community) having no brothers, did not possess any right of succession in the ancestral property. Accordingly, the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the respondent before the SDO was allowed and the plaint submitted by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 09.06.2025. Counsel submits that the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest not once but twice and so also by the Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the case of Tirth Kumar and Ors. Vs. Dadu Ram and Ors. while deciding Civil Appeal No. 13516/2024 vide order dated 1