High Court Upholds Tribal Woman’s Right to Ancestral Property Under Equality Law

Rajasthan High Court reaffirms equal property rights for tribal women, quashing Revenue Board’s order and aligning with Supreme Court rulings on gender equality.

In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, delivered a landmark judgment affirming the inheritance rights of tribal women in ancestral property. The case, Manni Devi vs. Rama Devi & Others, challenged the discriminatory provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which excluded Scheduled Tribe women from claiming succession rights.

Read in Hindi

The Case Background

The petitioner, Manni Devi, a member of the Meena community (a Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan), sought to declare her rights in her father’s ancestral property. Her father had executed a gift deed in favor of another family member, bypassing her claim. When Manni Devi challenged this deed, the respondents argued that under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, tribal women were barred from inheritance rights unless the Central Government issued a notification extending these provisions to them.

The Board of Revenue had earlier upheld this exclusion, rejecting Manni Devi’s claim. However, Justice Dhand’s judgment overturned this decision, citing recent Supreme Court rulings that emphasized gender equality under the Constitution.

Petitioner’s Submissions: Manni Devi’s counsel argued that denying her inheritance rights solely because she belonged to a Scheduled Tribe violated Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. They relied on two recent Supreme Court judgments:

Tirth Kumar vs. Dadu Ram (2024)
Ram Charan vs. Sukhram (2025)

These rulings held that tribal women cannot be denied equal rights in ancestral property, as such discrimination contradicts constitutional guarantees of equality.

Respondents’ Submissions: The respondents contended that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act explicitly excluded Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government extended the law to them. They cited precedents like Gulam vs. Board of Revenue (2006) and Kamla Neti vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2023), where courts had upheld this exclusion.

Justice Dhand emphasized that the Constitution’s mandate of equality (Articles 14, 15, and 21) overrides discriminatory legal provisions. The judgment noted:

"When daughters from non-tribal communities are entitled to equal shares in ancestral property, there is no justification for denying the same right to tribal women. Female tribals must have parity with male tribals in matters of succession."

The court also referenced the Supreme Court’s observation in Kamla Neti, urging the Central Government to amend the Hindu Succession Act to remove this disparity.

The High Court set aside the Board of Revenue’s order and directed the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) to reconsider Manni Devi’s case on merit, ensuring no discrimination based on tribal identity. Key takeaways from the judgment include:

Constitutional Equality Prevails: The court reaffirmed that statutory provisions cannot override fundamental rights.

Progressive Interpretation: The ruling aligns with global movements for gender justice and women’s empowerment.

Call for Legislative Reform: The judgment echoed the Supreme Court’s recommendation for the Central Government to amend Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act.

Justice Dhand’s ruling is a watershed moment for tribal women’s rights in India. By rejecting archaic legal barriers, the judgment reinforces the constitutional vision of equality and dignity for all citizens. As the court aptly noted:

"Denying tribal women their rightful inheritance after 75 years of independence is unjust. It’s time for laws to reflect the principles of equality enshrined in our Constitution."

This decision not only benefits Manni Devi but also sets a precedent for future cases, ensuring tribal women are no longer sidelined in matters of inheritance. The ball now lies in the legislature’s court to enact reforms that align with this progressive judicial outlook.

Case Title: Manni Devi vs. Rama Devi & Others

Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10638/2025

Download Order