JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgement and decree dated in O.S.No.30 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Salem, dated 06.10.2017.)

1. The lis on hand raises an important question, whether the tribal women in the State of Tamil Nadu can be excluded from their share in the family property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

2. The facts as detailed in the impugned judgment, broadly are not disputed between the parties and more so, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, who claimed equal share in the family property by instituting a suit for partition. The Trial Court invoked the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and held that the Tribal Women are also entitled for equal share in their family property on par with the other male coparceners and the defendants in the suit has chosen to file the present appeal suit.

3. The suit was instituted by the respondent herein: wife and daughter of Mr.Ramasamy, seeking a partition of the suit mentioned property, which belonged to Mr.Ramar @ Ramasamy. The plaintiffs claimed that they are entitled for 2/5 equal and separate shares in the suit mentioned property. The defendants filed a written statement denying the plaint averments. The defendants denied the right to property to the plaintiffs on the ground that some of the properties were sold in favour of the husband of the second plaintiff and regarding the other properties, there was an oral partition between the parties and therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to claim any share in the suit mentioned property.

4. The Trial Court adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and evidences and formed an opinion that the defendant had not established their case and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for equal share in the suit mentioned property as prayed for.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant, beyond the facts adjudicated by the Trial Court, raised an important legal question that the tribal women are expressly excluded from the application of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 stipulates “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.” Relying on the above provision, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated that, the scheduled tribe women are expressly excluded from the provisions of the Act and therefore, the Trial Court has erroneously applied the Hindu Succession Act and granted relief in the suit, which is untenable.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent strenuously objected to the said contention by stating that the defendants have miserably failed to establish the custom and practice, if any prevailing amongst the community, where the plaintiff and defendant belong and in the absence of any such proof to establish such custom of practice, the Hindu Succession Act alone should be applied and therefore, the Trial Court is right in granting the relief of partition to the plaintiffs. It is further contended that the tribal women cannot be denied or deprived of equal share on par with other female Hindu in the state of Tamil Nadu and thus, denying the right to the scheduled tribe, will result in unconstitutionality and discrimination. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly proceeded based on the Hindu Succession Act and granted the relief and hence, the appeal suit to be dismissed.

7. Let us now consider the spirit of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, with reference to Article 366(25) of the Constitution of India. The said Article contemplates “Scheduled Tribes means such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deem