Hindu Succession Act Not Applicable To Gond Tribe: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not govern succession rights within the Gond community, underscoring that tribal inheritance remains strictly tethered to established customary laws or the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875. the Court set aside a First Appellate Court decree that had granted a woman half-share in ancestral property based on general principles of equity, holding that such judicial 'fairness' cannot override the explicit statutory exclusion of Scheduled Tribes under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Justice Sushma Sawant, sitting as a Single Bench, adjudicated the second appeal arising from a title dispute in Uttar Bastar Kanker. The Chhattisgarh High Court sought to determine whether a niece could claim exclusive or partial title over her paternal aunt's property in the absence of established custom, especially when the parties belonged to the 'Gond Tribe'.

Key Takeaways

Statutory Exclusion Reinforced

Affirms that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 serves as an absolute bar to the Act's application to Scheduled Tribes unless a specific Central Government notification exists.

Primacy of Customary Law

Establishes that in tribal successions, the claimant must explicitly plead and prove the existence of a specific custom to deviate from traditional agnatic (male-line) inheritance.

Residual Application of 1875 Act

Clarifies that in the absence of a proved custom, tribal inheritance disputes in the region must be resolved under the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, which invokes justice, equity, and good conscience.

Burden of Proof on Plaintiff

Reiterates that a plaintiff seeking a declaration of title must prove their own case and cannot rely on the defendant's failure to prove a Will.

Hindu Succession Act not Applicable to Scheduled Tribes

The Chhattisgarh High Court observed that both parties admitted to belonging to the Gond community. Under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Act does not apply to members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India. The Bench clarified that "The Supreme Court, in the matter of Madhu Kishwar and others v. State of Bihar and others ( "(1996) 5 SCC 125": 1996 CaseBase(SC) 300), has held that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act do not apply to Scheduled Tribes governed by their customary law. It is, therefore, necessary for a party claiming succession on the basis of a custom to establish the existence and applicability of such custom. In the absence of any established or proved custom governing succession, the succession has to be determined in accordance with the applicable statutory law."

Appellate Court's Failure to Identify Custom

The Chhattisgarh High Court criticized the First Appellate Court for reversing the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit without identifying a legal basis for the plaintiff's share. It noted that the lower appellate court merely relied on the defendant's failure to prove a Will to grant the plaintiff a 50% share. However, the Chhattisgarh High Court emphasized that the plaintiff failed to prove a custom where property devolves upon a niece despite the existence of other male agnates.

Ratio

Members of the Gond Tribe are specifically excluded from the ambit of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by virtue of Section 2(2). Consequently, succession is governed by customary law, or failing that, the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875. A claimant must specifically plead and prove a custom to establish a right of inheritance; general principles of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or equity cannot be invoked to grant shares in tribal property where a specific custom is not established.

Background

The dispute concerned 1.57 acres of agricultural land in Village Kanharpuri, originally belonging to Biju Gond. The plaintiff, Amila Bai, daughter of Mahru (Biju's son), claimed exclusive title over the share of Dukhiya Bai (widow of Manher, another son of Biju) after Dukhiya died issue-less. The defendant, Jagdish, claimed the land based on a Will executed by Dukhiya Bai and his entry as a co-occupant.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove her exclusive title and that the parties, being Gonds, were not governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The First Appellate Court reversed this, granting a half-share to the plaintiff. The Chhattisgarh High Court, relying on Mst. Sarwango and others v. Mst. Urchmahin and others, Daduram and others v. Bhuri Bai (Died & Deleted) and others, and Tirith Kumar and others v. Daduram and others ( "Civil Appeal No.13516 of 2024 arising out of SLP (C) No. 21506 of 2019, decided on 19-12-2024": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 862), held that the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 was the governing law. It noted that the plaintiff failed to implead other legal heirs of Biju Gond and failed to prove a custom allowing a niece to inherit over other paternal relations. Relying on Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) by LRs and Azgar Barid (dead) by Legal Representatives and others v. Mazambi alias Pyaremabi and others, the Chhattisgarh High Court found the First Appellate Court's approach perverse for failing to consider the applicable statutory bar and the burden of proof.

Case Details:
Case No.: SA No. 496 of 2014
Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:44263
Case Title: Jagdish (Dead) Through LRs v. Amila Bai and Another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate; Mrs. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CTH) 19903