Supreme Court Holds Tribal Woman’s Heirs Entitled to Equal Share in Ancestral Property

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard Civil Appeal No. 9537 of 2025 (arising out of SLP(C) No.5559 of 2023) concerning whether a tribal woman, or her legal heirs, were entitled to an equal share in ancestral property held by her father. The appeal arose from concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court of Chhattisgarh which had dismissed a suit for partition filed by the heirs of a deceased tribal woman on the ground that Scheduled Tribes fell outside the Hindu Succession Act and that no custom had been proved to entitle female succession.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the courts below to the extent of denying the female heir her share. The Court held that the exclusion of members of Scheduled Tribes from the Hindu Succession Act meant the provisions of that Act did not apply, but that absence of a proved custom excluding women from succession could not justify denial of rights. The Court applied the statutory principle of "justice, equity and good conscience" recognised in Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, and read that principle together with Article 14 of the Constitution to reach a just result. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In view of the above discussion, we are of the firm view 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, being Dhaiya’s legal heirs, are entitled to their equal share in the property. The judgments of the Courts below are accordingly set aside to that extent. The civil appeal is allowed accordingly." The Court also noted the statutory exclusion: "Section 2(2): Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe ..." and emphasised that where no custom to the contrary was proved, denying succession to women violated equality under Article 14.

Background The appellants were the legal heirs of Dhaiya, a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, and they sought partition of property belonging to Dhaiya’s father, Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond. Their mother was one of six children (five sons and one daughter). The cause of action arose when certain defendants refused partition in 1992 and the appellants filed suit for declaration and partition. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 29 February 2008, finding that the plaintiffs had not proved any community custom entitling the daughter to inherit and that Scheduled Tribe members fell outside the Hindu Succession Act. The First Appellate Court affirmed on 21 April 2009 for similar reasons.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh also rejected the claim, relying on precedent and the absence of proof of a custom granting daughters succession rights. The appellants challenged these conclusions before this Court by posing the substantial question whether the lower courts were justified in recording perverse findings contrary to the record. The Supreme Court addressed three strands: (i) the exclusion of Scheduled Tribes from the Hindu Succession Act (Section 2(2)); (ii) the absence of proved custom either granting or denying female succession; and (iii) the application of the principle of "justice, equity and good conscience" embodied in the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875. The Court observed that the repeal of the 1875 Act did not impair accrued rights because of the saving clause in the Repeal Act, and that where personal law or custom was silent, courts could "act according to justice, equity and good conscience." The Court held that neither party proved a custom excluding women and that, in those circumstances, denying Dhaiya and her heirs a share would lack a "rational nexus" and would violate Article 14. The Court therefore allowed the civil appeal, granted partition to the extent of the share due to Dhaiya’s heirs, and set aside the judgments below. No costs were awarded and pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 9537 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5559 of 2023) Case Title: Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]