Customs can't remain stuck in time: Supreme Court upholds tribal woman's right to inherit property

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that unproven customs cannot be used as a ground to deprive tribal women or their heirs of the right to inherit ancestral property [Ram Charan v. Sukhram].

The Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi held that in the absence of a personal law or proven custom barring such inheritance, courts must fall back on the principle of justice, equity and good conscience, guided by constitutional guarantees of equality.

Pertinently, the Court said that customs have to evolve with the changing times and that outdated customs cannot be used as a shield to deprive people of their rights.

“Customs too, like the 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 case arose from a partition dispute where the heirs of a tribal woman had claimed a share in property belonging to her father. The courts below dismissed their claim, reasoning that the plaintiffs had not proved any custom entitling daughters of Scheduled Tribes to inherit property.

The High Court too held that with no such custom established and the Hindu Succession Act being inapplicable to Scheduled Tribes, the suit could not succeed.

The Supreme Court found serious error in this approach. It said that the courts below wrongly assumed that the prevailing custom excluded women from inheritance. It observed that the courts shifted the burden onto the plaintiffs to prove that no such exclusionary custom existed.

“The point of inception regarding the discussion of customs was at the exclusion stage, meaning thereby that they assumed there to be an exclusionary custom in a place where the daughters would not be entitled to any inheritance and expected the appellant-plaintiffs to prove otherwise,” the judgment said.

The Bench acknowledged that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 did not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes as per Section 2(2) of the statute.

With Hindu law ruled out and no proven custom from either side, the case fell to be decided under the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.

The High Court had held that the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 could not apply as it had been repealed in 2018.

However, the Supreme Court rejected this view, citing Section 4 of the Repealing and Amending Act, 2018, which contains a saving clause protecting rights that accrued before repeal.

“The effect of Section 4 is clear that no right having been accrued prior to the repeal of the Act shall be affected thereby,” the judgment said.

In the present case, right of the concerned woman had crystallised at the time of her father’s death, which had occurred nearly 30 years before the filing of the suit. Hence, the right would not be affected by the fact that the 1875 Act was no longer in the statute book.

"This Act (of 1875), therefore, necessarily had to be applied by the High Court," the Supreme Court stated.

The Bench then turned to the broader question of equality and gender justice. It said that denying women inheritance in such cases not only lacked legal justification, but also offended the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution.

“Denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out,” the Court held.

It added that in the absence of any proven custom barring female succession, the denial of equal property rights to the woman or her heirs would amount to discrimination.

“We are of the firm view that in keeping with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, read along with the overarching effect of Article 14 of the Constitution, the appellant-plaintiffs, being Dhaiya’s legal heirs, are entitled to their equal share in the property,” the Court ruled.

The Bench concluded that the plaintiffs, being legal heirs of the tribal woman, were entitled to their share in the ancestral property.

“Denying Dhaiya her share in her father’s property, when the custom is silent, would violate her right to equality vis-à-vis her brothers or those of her legal heirs vis-à-vis their cousin,” the judgment said.

The judgments of the trial court, the first appellate court and the High Court were all set aside.

Advocates Padmesh Mishra, Vastvikta Bhardwaj, Nikunj Goyal, Aditya, Vijant and Neelam Singh appeared for the petitioners.

Advocates Bipin Bihari Singh, Ashok Anand, Anand Singh, Aakash Kakade, Rakesh Kumar Singh and Sumeer Sodhi appeared for the respondents.

[Read Judgment]