Case Citation
Court Name: Supreme Court of India
Case Title: Tirith Kumar & Ors. vs. Daduram & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 13516 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21506/2019)
Date of Judgment: 19th December 2024
Judges: Sanjay Karol, J., and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Facts of the Case
The case involves a dispute over land ownership between two branches of a family descending from a common ancestor, Chuchrung. The disagreement centers on whether the property owned by Mardan (one of Chuchrung’s sons) devolved to his daughters or was passed to his brother Puni Ram and his descendants. The appellants claimed ownership of the property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, while the respondents argued that their tribal status precluded the application of the Act. Lower courts had ruled in favor of the appellants, citing their adherence to Hindu customs, but the High Court overturned these findings, emphasizing the parties’ tribal identity and the non-application of the Hindu Succession Act.
Contentions of the Appellants
The appellants contended that both sides of the family had adopted Hindu customs and practices, abandoning their tribal ways. They argued that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, should govern the dispute and that the property in question rightfully belonged to Puni Ram’s descendants, as Mardan’s daughters could not inherit under Hindu law in force at the time of his death in 1951.
Contentions of the Respondents
The respondents maintained that the parties were members of the Sawara tribe, a notified Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution, and hence were not governed by Hindu law. They asserted that tribal customs of succession should prevail, which would entitle Mardan’s daughters to a share in the property. They challenged the claim of “Hinduisation” made by the appellants and relied on the constitutional provisions excluding Scheduled Tribes from the purview of the Hindu Succession Act.
Issues on this Judgment
- Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies to the parties in light of their tribal identity?
- Whether the appellants’ claim of adopting Hindu customs and practices is sufficient to override their status as members of a Scheduled Tribe?
- Whether Mardan’s daughters are entitled to inherit property under the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience?
Observations/Findings of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, finding that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, explicitly excludes Scheduled Tribes unless directed otherwise by the Central Government through a notification. There was no evidence or notification to establish that the Sawara tribe had been de-notified or that the Hindu Succession Act was made applicable to them. Justice, equity, and good conscience principles justified granting a share of the property to Mardan’s daughters and their successors, recognizing their rightful claim despite the non-applicability of Hindu law. The constitutional framework and earlier judicial precedents, including cases like Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, were consistent with this approach.
Principles Laid Down by the Court
- Scheduled Tribes are excluded from the ambit of the Hindu Succession Act unless explicitly included through a governmental notification.
- In the absence of applicable statutory provisions, courts can rely on the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience to resolve disputes.
- Tribal customs and laws must be respected unless parties can clearly demonstrate their abandonment and adoption of alternate legal systems.
Final Order
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s judgment. It held that Mardan’s daughters and their successors were entitled to half of the disputed property. It reiterated the importance of legislative intervention to ensure gender equality in inheritance laws for Scheduled Tribes.
Importance of This Judgment to Society
This judgment highlights the intersection of tribal customs and statutory laws, reaffirming the constitutional protection of tribal identity and customs. It underscores the judiciary’s role in applying equitable principles to bridge gaps in statutory frameworks, ensuring justice for marginalized communities. By acknowledging the inheritance rights of tribal women, the judgment promotes gender equality and social justice, aligning with the broader constitutional mandate.
