The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has held that in the absence of any established custom governing inheritance, the principles of “justice, equity, and good conscience,” in conjunction with the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14, mandate that a tribal woman’s legal heirs are entitled to an equal share in her ancestral property. The Court set aside the judgments of the Chhattisgarh High Court and two lower courts, which had dismissed a partition suit filed by the heirs of a tribal woman belonging to the Gond caste.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a suit for partition filed by the appellants, who are the legal heirs of a tribal woman named Dhaiya. They sought an equal share in the ancestral property of their maternal grandfather, Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond. Dhaiya was one of six children, having five brothers. The cause of action arose in October 1992 when the defendants refused the appellants’ request for partition.
The Trial Court (Second Civil Judge, Class-2, Surajpur) dismissed the suit on February 29, 2008. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove any custom within their Gond caste that entitled a daughter to inherit her father’s property. It also noted that as per Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes.
This decision was upheld by the First Appellate Court on April 21, 2009, and subsequently by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in a second appeal on July 1, 2022. The High Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their right to the property by way of custom and rejected the argument based on “justice, equity and good conscience,” noting that the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, which contained this principle, had been repealed. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, presided over by a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, undertook a detailed analysis of the legal questions involved.
On the Application of Custom and Hindu Law
The Court first clarified that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is unequivocally excluded from application to Scheduled Tribes by its Section 2(2). The bench then addressed the issue of custom, observing that the lower courts had proceeded on a flawed premise. Justice Karol, writing for the bench, noted:
“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 criticised this “patriarchal predisposition” and stated that since neither the plaintiffs could prove a custom of inclusion nor the defendants a custom of exclusion, the court must look to other principles.
On ‘Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience’
The Court found the High Court’s refusal to apply the principle of “justice, equity and good conscience” on the grounds of the repeal of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, to be “mistaken”. It pointed to the savings clause (Section 4) of the repealing act, which protects rights that have already accrued. The Court determined that the right of the appellants’ mother to the property had “crystallized” upon her father’s death, which occurred approximately 30 years before the suit was filed, and thus could not be affected by the subsequent repeal of the 1875 Act.
The Court cited the Constitution Bench judgment in M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das (Ram Janmabhoomi Temple), which held that courts may legitimately take recourse to these principles where the statutory framework is inadequate or no settled custom can be ascertained.
On Constitutional Equality under Article 14
The bench elevated the issue to one of fundamental rights, stating that denying a female heir her property right constitutes a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court observed:
“There appears to be no rational nexus or reasonable classification for only males to be granted succession over the property of their forebears and not women, more so in the case where no prohibition to such effect can be shown to be prevalent as per law.”
The judgment referenced the philosophy behind the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which granted daughters equal coparcenary rights to eliminate gender discrimination. It further relied on landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to assert that equality is a dynamic concept and is antithetical to arbitrariness. The Court concluded that “denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out”.
Decision of the Court
Based on its comprehensive analysis, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The final conclusion of the Court was stated as:
“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 judgments of the High Court, the First Appellate Court, and the Trial Court were accordingly set aside.
