SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRIBAL WOMEN’S SUCCESSION RIGHTS

INTRODUCTION:

In Ram Charan & Ors v. Sukhram & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 9537 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5559 of 2023)), the Supreme Court examined the question of whether a tribal woman is entitled to inherit ancestral property. The Bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi examined whether, in the absence of a codified personal law or proven custom, the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, along with the fundamental right to equality, could be invoked to ensure equal inheritance rights for female heirs of Scheduled Tribes. The Court’s decision not only sets aside the findings of the Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court but also reinforces the principle of gender equality in inheritance rights.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Appellants are the legal heirs of a woman named Dhaiya, who belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. They filed a suit seeking partition of ancestral property that originally belonged to their maternal grandfather, Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond. Mr. Bhajan Gond had six children, 5 sons and one daughter. The Appellants claimed that, as her legal heirs, they were entitled to an equal share in the property. The dispute arose in October 1992 when other members of the family refused to carry out the partition due to which the Appellants approached the Trial Court, seeking a declaration of title and division of the property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that Dhaiya had no right to her father’s property as a tribal woman. The Court further noted that no evidence had been submitted to establish that the children of a female tribal heir were entitled to inherit. The Appellate Court agreed with the Trial Court’s view and upheld its decision. The High Court also affirmed both Judgments, maintaining that the Appellants had failed to prove any legal or customary right to seek partition through their mother’s lineage. Aggrieved by the findings of the lower courts, the Appellants have sought relief before the Supreme Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES IN THE LOWER COURTS:

The Appellants argued that there existed a custom within their tribal community that permitted inheritance through the female line. They claimed that such customary rights would entitle Dhaiya to seek partition of the property. However, they were unable to provide concrete evidence to substantiate the existence of this custom. In the absence of a proven custom or specific statutory provision, the Appellants urged the application of general principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. They relied on a previous High Court Judgment in Daduram v. Bhuri Bai to argue that, in the absence of specific tribal succession rules, principles of equity should apply.

The Appellants further contended that their family had adopted Hindu traditions, and therefore, their claim should be adjudicated in light of the Hindu Succession Act. Under the Act, daughters have equal rights in ancestral property, and accordingly, they argued that their mother’s share should be recognized on par with that of her brothers.

The Respondents contended that female tribal heirs and their descendants do not possess inheritance rights under prevailing customary law. They further opposed the Appellants’ reliance on the Daduram v. Bhuri Bai decision, arguing that it was no longer applicable since it was based on the 1875 Act, which stood repealed on 30th March 2018. The High Court rejected the argument of applying justice, equity, and good conscience in the absence of custom, noting that the Coordinate Bench in Daduram was not informed of the Act’s repeal.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court first considered the contention of adopting Hindu customs by the Appellants. It clarified that the question of the parties adopting Hindu customs or way of life was no longer relevant. The Court noted that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, clearly excludes Scheduled Tribes from its scope. Therefore, it concluded that Hindu law could not apply to the present dispute.

The Court then considered whether a custom existed that governed inheritance among the parties. It emphasized that for a custom to apply, it must be clearly proven. It observed that the lower courts, seemed to have started with an incorrect assumption that a customary rule excluded daughters from inheritance and placed the burden on the Appellants to disprove it. It noted that the opposite approach was equally plausible which is assuming inclusion of daughters to inheritance, unless the defendants proved a custom of exclusion. Since neither side could establish a specific law or custom governing succession, the Court turned to the principle of justice, equity, and good conscience, which is statutorily recognized under Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875. Although the High Court had dismissed the relevance of the 1875 Act due to its repeal in 2018, the Supreme Court found this conclusion incorrect. It pointed to Section 4 of the Repealing Act, 2018, which includes a saving clause ensuring that rights accrued before the repeal remain unaffected. Since the inheritance rights of the Appellant’s mother came into existence upon her father’s death, nearly thirty years before the suit was filed, the repeal of the law could not take away a right that had already been established. The Court clarified that the principle of justice, equity, and good conscience applies in the absence of any governing law or custom. Since no customary rule excluding or including women was proven, applying this principle was appropriate and necessary. The Court relied on several of its earlier judgments like Niemla Textile Finishing Mills Ltd. v. 2nd Punjab Tribunal, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 64, M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1 etc, to support the applicability of justice, equity, and good conscience.

The Court emphasized that justice, equity, and good conscience must be applied contextually. Denying inheritance to women due to a lack of explicit custom is unjust, especially as customs must evolve over time. It further held that such exclusion violates Article 14, as there is no valid reason to allow only male heirs. Articles 15(1), 38, and 46 reinforce the mandate against gender-based discrimination. It reiterated the law laid down in landmark judgements of Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) 4 SCC 335, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248, Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1 etc and also considered the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 which stated that daughters also could be the coparceners in the joint property.

The Court concluded that, although the Appellants could not prove a custom supporting female succession, the respondents also failed to prove any custom against it. In the absence of such proof, excluding Dhaiya or her heirs from inheritance would violate the right to equality. Therefore, applying principles of justice, equity, good conscience, and Article 14, the Court concluded that Dhaiya’s legal heirs are entitled to an equal share, setting aside the lower court rulings.

Conclusion:

Denying a female heir her rightful share in ancestral property only serves to deepen gender-based inequality, something the law must work to eliminate, not reinforce. At a time when the nation has made meaningful progress toward the constitutional promise of equality, it is unfortunate that such intervention by the Court is still necessary. The right of all heirs to inherit, regardless of gender, should be a given. This Judgment is a step toward making that expectation a reality.

 

SOUJANYA KULKARNI

Intern, ICFAI Law School

 

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “What Is Waqf? Legal Meaning, Rights & Key Judgments in India” | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma| Advocate Sushila Ram Varma| can be viewed at the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKJgw5k4kQU