The present legal dispute of Tirith Kumar & Others Vs Daduram & Others, originating from the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, raises important questions regarding the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) to members of Scheduled Tribes, particularly in the context of tribal communities that have adopted Hindu customs. This case, along with its multifaceted legal arguments, ultimately addresses the intersection of statutory law, customary law, and principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
Background and Facts:
The case revolves around a dispute concerning land ownership among two branches of a family with a common ancestor, Chuchrung, who had two sons, Mardan and Puni Ram. The descendants of Puni Ram filed a suit claiming ownership of a 13.95-acre land in village Bagri Pali, which originally belonged to Mardan. The plaintiffs contended that they were the rightful successors to the property, while the defendants, descendants of Mardan, claimed rights over it as well.
The key issue was whether the parties could be governed by Hindu law for purposes of inheritance. The lower courts, including the Civil Judge Class-2 and the Additional District Judge, ruled that the parties, despite being part of a tribal community, had sufficiently adhered to Hindu customs, and therefore, the property should be governed by Hindu law. The courts concluded that the daughters of Mardan had no right to inherit the property under the pre-HSA law, as Mardan died before the enactment of the HSA, and women were not entitled to inherit property under the old Hindu law.
The High Court’s Reversal:
However, on appeal to the High Court, the judgment of the lower courts was overturned. The High Court reasoned that the parties belonged to the Sawara tribe, a scheduled tribe under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. The court referred to Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, which explicitly excludes members of Scheduled Tribes from its application unless the Central Government issues a notification extending its provisions to them. The High Court observed that there was no such notification in the present case, meaning that the Hindu Succession Act could not apply to the Sawara tribe.
Moreover, the High Court highlighted that while the plaintiffs had claimed adherence to Hindu customs, they had not provided sufficient evidence of abandoning their tribal customs in matters of succession. As a result, the Court relied on the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, particularly Sections 5 and 6, invoking the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience to decide the case. The High Court ultimately ruled that the daughters of Mardan and their descendants should inherit half of the property, applying equitable principles despite the absence of explicit legal provisions.
Constitutional and Legal Framework:
The case touches upon the broader constitutional framework that governs Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Articles 341 and 342 of the Indian Constitution empower the President to notify castes, races, or tribes as Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. This means that a tribe can only be recognized as a Scheduled Tribe through a formal notification, and the same holds true for de-notification. In the present case, since no notification was produced to show that the Sawara tribe was de-notified, the High Court's application of equity, rather than strict statutory provisions, was deemed necessary.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, under Section 2(2), excludes members of Scheduled Tribes from its scope unless the Central Government specifically directs its application to them. This exclusion has been upheld in several judgments, including Madhu Kishwar vs. State of Bihar (1996) and Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG) vs. Union of India (1997), which clearly establish that tribal communities are governed by their customs, not the Hindu Succession Act, unless a special notification applies.
Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience:
A significant aspect of the High Court’s judgment was the invocation of the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. In cases where no clear statutory law applies, these principles can serve as a guide for courts to ensure fair outcomes, especially when dealing with matters like succession where the law may be silent or inadequate.
The High Court’s reliance on the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, which allows for the application of equity and good conscience in cases involving succession, reflects a broader understanding of justice. This approach has been endorsed by various judicial precedents, such as in M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple) vs. Suresh Das (2020), where the Supreme Court recognized that equity can fill gaps in the law when positive law is either silent or insufficient.
This principle was also highlighted in Saraswathi Ammal vs. Jagadambal (1953), where the absence of a specific custom or law was addressed through equitable considerations. Similarly, in the M.V. Elisabeth case, the Supreme Court acknowledged that in the absence of clear legal provisions, courts may rely on the principles of justice and equity to adjudicate disputes.
Implications for Scheduled Tribes and Inheritance Law:
The present case underscores the ongoing challenge of reconciling customary tribal law with modern statutory law. The exclusion of Scheduled Tribes from the purview of the Hindu Succession Act remains a contentious issue, particularly when tribal communities have adopted certain Hindu practices. In its judgment, the High Court acknowledged that while statutory law may not apply, the principles underlying Hindu Succession law could still guide decisions through equity, ensuring that tribal women have an equal right to inheritance.
The ruling aligns with the dissenting opinion in Madhu Kishwar vs. State of Bihar, where it was argued that the principles of justice and equity should ensure that tribal women have the same inheritance rights as their male counterparts, mirroring the changes brought about by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, for non-tribal women.
The Need for Reform:
The Court in Kamla Neti vs. LAO (2023) suggested that the Central Government should reconsider the exclusion of Scheduled Tribes from the Hindu Succession Act and explore ways to ensure that female tribals are granted equal inheritance rights. This recommendation echoes the broader call for gender parity in succession rights, especially for tribal women, who have historically been denied such rights under tribal customs.
Given the current legal framework, there is a compelling case for reforming inheritance laws for tribal communities. Ensuring that female tribals have equal succession rights would align with constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 21, and help address longstanding gender disparities.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while the High Court’s application of equity and good conscience in this case was legally sound, the broader issue of succession rights for tribal women remains a matter of ongoing concern. The exclusion of Scheduled Tribes from the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, creates significant challenges in ensuring that tribal women inherit property on an equal footing with men. As India continues to strive towards greater social and legal equality, the need for legislative reform in this area is more pressing than ever. The central government should take note of the judicial recommendations and consider amendments to the Hindu Succession Act to extend its provisions to Scheduled Tribes, ensuring equal inheritance rights for all, irrespective of gender or community.
Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
General Clauses Act, 1897
Constitution of India, 1950
