Back
Upholds Tribal Woman's Will, Suggests Notification Under Hindu Succession Act
Justice Maulik J. Shelat Dismisses Second Appeal, Confirms Validity of Will Executed by Issueless Tribal Widow; Recommends Central Notification to Codify Succession Rules for Scheduled Tribes
In a significant ruling that balances tribal customary law with constitutional principles of gender equality, the has upheld the validity of a will executed by a Scheduled Tribe woman, Chhaniben, who died issueless in 1991. The court dismissed a second appeal filed by the legal heirs of her brother, Ranchhodbhai Jesingbhai, who had sought to declare himself the sole owner of her property through the .
Background: A Disputed Inheritance
The dispute centered on agricultural lands in Surat district originally held by Jivlabhai, Chhaniben's husband, under tenancy rights. Jivlabhai died issueless around , and Chhaniben inherited the property as his widow. On — just two weeks before her death — Chhaniben executed a registered will bequeathing the lands to Anchhibhai Kavjibhai Chaudhari, the defendant, described as her nephew.
The original plaintiff, Ranchhodbhai, claimed to be Chhaniben's brother and argued that under the customs of the Chaudhari Scheduled Tribe community, he was entitled to inherit her property by survivorship. He contended that Chhaniben had no right to execute a will in favor of an outsider and sought a declaration that the will was illegal. Notably, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of a specific tribal custom that would give him inheritance rights over his sister's property.
Legal Arguments: Custom vs. Statutory Framework
Appellant's Submissions: argued that the , does not apply to Scheduled Tribes under Section 2(2), and therefore the courts below erred in relying on Hindu law principles. He contended that the suit lands were restricted-tenure holdings under , which prohibits . He also cited a coordinate bench decision in LH of Late Jashvantbhai Abhesingbhai Vasava v. Jesingbhai Abhesingbhai Vasava (Second Appeal No. 113 of 2024) in support.
Respondent's Position: The defendant successfully proved the execution of the will by examining witnesses, including the Registrar. It was also established that Chhaniben's brother-in-law, Kavlabhai Chogdabhai (Jivlabhai's elder brother), was alive at the time of her death. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had himself been involved in the preparation of the will and had earlier admitted the defendant's possession in a related suit.
Court's Analysis:
Justice Shelat noted that the plaintiff had not pleaded or proved any specific tribal custom that would entitle him to inherit by survivorship. In the absence of such custom, and given that the Hindu Succession Act is inapplicable, the court applied the principle of , as endorsed by the in Ram Charan v. Sukhram (AIR 2025 SC 2363).
"The Scheduled Tribe woman is entitled to inherit an equal share in the property of her ancestor who died
,"
the court observed, adding that Chhaniben, having inherited the property from her husband, became its absolute owner.
"In such circumstances, she was not prohibited from executing the Will, inasmuch as no such custom was brought to the notice of the Courts below and/or this Court by the plaintiff, whereby she was prohibited to execute the Will of her property."
The court also dismissed the argument under Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, noting that no revenue proceedings had been initiated by the plaintiff or by the authorities against the mutation of the defendant's name. Furthermore, the court pointed out that the plaintiff had been instrumental in the will's execution and could not now be heard to challenge it.
Key Observations from the Judgment
The court made several notable observations:
"Once Chhaniben inherited the suit property from her husband, it became her . In such circumstances, she was not prohibited from executing the Will."
"Since no custom was proved within Jivlabhai’s tribe regarding the devolution of an issueless widow’s property passes only in favour of her birth family, the plaintiff’s prayer for a declaration of sole ownership under the must fail."
"Before parting with the matter, I deem it necessary to observe that, in order to prevent such type of disputes and conflicting claims arising upon the death of a member of a Scheduled Tribe, it is imperative that the initiate necessary steps for the issuance of an appropriate notification by the under ."
Decision and Directions
The High Court dismissed the second appeal , confirming the of the trial court and the first appellate court. The court held that the questions raised did not constitute warranting interference under . The connected civil application for stay was also disposed of.
In a forward-looking direction, the court ordered the registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Government Pleader, , for onward transmission to the concerned department of the . The suggestion aims to provide a clear legal framework for the devolution of property of Scheduled Tribe members who die , especially those professing Hindu traditions, thereby protecting the equal property rights of tribal women.
