+91 964 334 1948
17 Jul 2025, 01:17 PM
Exclusion of females from inheritance is unreasonable and discriminatory, observed the Supreme Court, while allowing the women in a tribal family equal rights as the men in a dispute relating to succession.
The Court said that though the Hindu Succession Act is not applicable to the Scheduled Tribes, it doesn't mean that tribal women are automatically excluded from inheritance. It needs to be seen whether there exists any prevailing custom restricting the female tribal right to share in the ancestral property, the court added.
In this case, the parties could not establish the existence of any custom which excluded women from inheritance. Even if there is such a custom, it has to evolve, the Court stated. "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," the Court said.
The Court said that gender-based denial of inheritance rights violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. There is no rationale in allowing inheritance only to the male heirs.
It added that in the absence of any specific tribal custom or codified law prohibiting women's rights, courts must apply "justice, equity, and good conscience", otherwise “denying the female (or her) heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out.”
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi heard the case where the Appellants, being the legal heirs of a Scheduled Tribe woman named Dhaiya, sought a share in the property of her maternal grandfather. However, the male heirs from the family opposed the claim, asserting that under tribal customs, women were excluded from inheritance.
The trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court had all rejected the appellants' claim, stating that since the appellants failed to prove a custom permitting female inheritance, the tribal woman was not entitled to a share.
Setting aside the concurrent findings, the judgment authored by Justice Karol emphasized that in the absence of any prohibitive custom, equality must prevail. Denying a tribal woman or her heirs a property share solely on the basis of gender, it held, is unconstitutional. Moreover, it observed that Court's below erred in requiring the Appellants to prove a custom permitting inheritance by women, instead of requiring the opposing party to prove a bar to such inheritance.
“In the present case, a woman or her successors, if the views of the lower Court are upheld, would be denied a right to property on the basis of the absence of a positive assertion to such inheritance in custom. However, 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.”, the Court said.
“Granted that no such custom of female succession could be established by the appellant-plaintiffs, but nonetheless it is also equally true that a custom to the contrary also could not be shown in the slightest, much less proved. That being the case, denying Dhaiya (tribal female) her share in her father's property, when the custom is silent, would violate her right to equality vis-à-vis her brothers or those of her legal heirs vis-à-vis their cousin.”, the court observed.
Denying Succession To Female Tribal In Absence Of Prohibitory Custom Violates Article 15
“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. Article 15(1) states that the State shall not discriminate against any person on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. This, along with Articles 38 and 46, points to the collective ethos of the Constitution in ensuring that there is no discrimination against women.”, the court said.
In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal, granting the Appellants, being Dhaiya's legal heirs, an equal share in the property.
Cause Title: RAM CHARAN & ORS. VERSUS SUKHRAM & ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 717
Click here to read/download the judgment
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