17 July 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a landmark judgment of Ram Charan & Others v/s Sukhram & Others, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the constitutional goal of equality, particularly in the context of inheritance rights for tribal women. Addressing the crucial question of whether a tribal woman is entitled to an equal share in her ancestral property when specific customs are unproven or silent, the Court meticulously applied principles of justice, equity, and good conscience alongside the fundamental right to equality enshrined in the Constitution.

The Genesis of the Dispute:

The case originated from a partition suit filed by the legal heirs of Dhaiya, a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. They sought an equal share in the ancestral property of their maternal grandfather, Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond. Dhaiya was one of six children, with five brothers. The cause of action arose in 1992 when other family members refused to partition the property.

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit. Their reasoning centered on two points:

1. Lack of Customary Proof: The plaintiffs failed to "certify their caste customs" proving that daughters were entitled to inherit their father's property. The courts assumed an exclusionary custom and placed the burden of proving otherwise on the plaintiffs.
2. Inapplicability of Hindu Law: Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, explicitly states that the Act does not apply to members of any Scheduled Tribe unless directed otherwise by the Central Government.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in its judgment dated July 1, 2022, concurred with the lower courts, maintaining that the appellant-plaintiffs had failed to establish their right over the property by way of custom. An argument based on "justice, equity and good conscience" was also rejected, mistakenly believing that the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, which embodies this principle, stood fully repealed without any saving clauses applicable to accrued rights.

Supreme Court's Progressive Interpretation:

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court delved deep into the foundational principles of law and justice.

• Hindu Law Inapplicability Reaffirmed: The Court reiterated that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not govern Scheduled Tribes, as per Section 2(2) of the Act, unless specifically notified by the Central Government.
• Challenging Patriarchal Assumptions on Custom: The Supreme Court critically observed that the lower courts proceeded with a "patriarchal predisposition." They wrongly assumed an "exclusionary custom" where daughters would not inherit and then expected the plaintiffs to prove a custom of inclusion. The Court clarified that if a custom is silent, it doesn't automatically imply exclusion; rather, an exclusionary custom, if claimed, must be proven.
• Reviving Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience: A pivotal aspect of the Supreme Court's reasoning was the application of Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875. Despite its repeal in 2018, the Court highlighted the saving clause (Section 4 of Repeal Act No.4 of 2018), which preserves rights accrued prior to the repeal. Since the mother's right to property accrued approximately 30 years before the suit, the 1875 Act's principle of "justice, equity and good conscience" was deemed applicable. The Court emphasized that this principle serves to fill legal voids and ensures just outcomes where statutory law or established customs are silent or insufficient.
• Constitutional Imperative of Equality: The Court underscored the non-negotiable mandate of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 15(1) (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex) of the Constitution. It held that denying a female heir a right in property, especially when custom is silent, "exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out." The Court noted the absence of any "rational nexus or reasonable classification" to justify only males inheriting property from their ancestors. This aligns with the constitutional ethos of ensuring no discrimination against women, further exemplified by the progressive changes in Hindu law through the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which granted daughters coparcenary rights.

The Verdict:

In light of its comprehensive analysis, the Supreme Court concluded 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, as Dhaiya's legal heirs, are entitled to an equal share in the property. The judgments of the lower courts were consequently set aside.

This ruling stands as a powerful testament to the judiciary's role in advancing social justice and gender equality, particularly for marginalized communities where traditional laws may be uncodified or perpetuate discriminatory practices. It reinforces that constitutional principles of equality must prevail, ensuring that no individual is denied their rightful inheritance simply due to their gender or the silence of unproven customs.