In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that tribal women are entitled to equal rights in ancestral property, stating that excluding female heirs solely based on gender is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi delivered this significant verdict in the case Ram Charan & Ors. vs. Sukhram & Ors., reversing the concurrent decisions of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court, and the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
"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." — Supreme Court
Read also: Kapil Sibal Urges Supreme Court to Stop 'Udaipur Files', Calls It Vilification of Entire Community
Background of the Case
The appellants, legal heirs of a tribal woman named Dhaiya, had sought partition of ancestral property belonging to their maternal grandfather. Their claim was denied by the lower courts, which held that there was no established custom allowing inheritance by women in their tribal community and that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, did not apply to Scheduled Tribes.
However, the Supreme Court noted that the lower courts wrongly assumed that the appellants needed to prove a custom allowing female inheritance. Instead, the burden should have been on the opposing party to prove a custom prohibiting it.
The Court emphasized that in the absence of any proven prohibitive custom or codified law barring women from inheritance, the principle of "justice, equity, and good conscience" must prevail.
Read also: High Court: Jail Imprisonment Can’t Be Ground to Reject Appeal Against Property Freezing Under
“Denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out.” — Justice Sanjay Karol
The Court also referred to Article 14 of the Constitution, stating that gender-based denial of inheritance rights violates the principle of equality before law. It further cited Article 15(1), highlighting that the State must not discriminate on the grounds of sex.
The judgment also clarified the incorrect understanding regarding the repeal of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875. The Court ruled that the repeal does not invalidate rights that had already accrued under the principle of equity, as per the saving clause in the Repeal Act, 2018.
Read also: Isha Foundation Moves Supreme Court to Restrain Nakkheeran from Publishing Alleged Defamatory Content
“Granted that no such custom of female succession could be established by the appellant-plaintiffs, but equally true is that a custom to the contrary also could not be shown.” — Supreme Court
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and allowed the appeal, granting Dhaiya's legal heirs an equal share in the ancestral property.
Title: RAM CHARAN & ORS. VERSUS SUKHRAM & ORS
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Vastvikta Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Goyal, Adv. Mr. Aditya, Adv. Mr. Vijant, Adv. Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashok Anand, AOR Mr. Anand Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ajay Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mukul Dev Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR