Hindu Succession Act Can’t Apply To Scheduled Tribes: SC Upholds Order Granting Share To Female Tribals By Invoking Principles Of Justice, Equity & Good Conscience

The Apex Court also made it clear that the Act details as to whom the legislation would apply and it clearly states that scheduled castes and tribes shall be outside its purview of application.

The Division Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar & Justice Sanjay Karol said, “The HSA, 1956, cannot apply to scheduled tribes. This position of law is well settled.”

The Appeal before the Apex Court challenged the correctness of the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in a Second Appeal and it raised the question as to whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 could be applied to the parties to the instant lis. The lower Courts found the appellants to be ‘sufficiently hinduised', having given up their customs as part of a tribal community and therefore governed by Hindu law. It was also held that the respondents didn’t have any right over the property originally belonging to the son of the common ancestor.

The dispute in this case pertained to the ownership of land between two sides of the same family, with a common ancestor by the name of Chuchrung. This common ancestor had two sons named Mardan and Puni Ram. The sons and legal heirs of Puni Ram set the law in motion, seeking a declaration that the suit property belonged to them and for a permanent injunction against the respondents. The Civil Judge had observed that both the plaintiffs and defendants “abide and follow the Hindu principles of law”. The dispute regarding the death of Mardan was resolved with the Court observing that he had indeed died prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Bench also held that defendants did not have any right of ownership over the property, which originally belonged to Mardan and the successors of Puni Ram had the right over the said property.

The First Appellate Court agreed with the findings arrived at by the Court below. However, when the matter reached the High Court, the findings of lower courts were overturned. The Court invoked the principles of justice, equity and good conscience to hold that the legal representatives of Mardan, i.e. his daughters and their successors-in-interest, would be entitled to half share in the total suit property.

The Apex Court took note of the fact that the parties to the present lis claimed to be Hindus and therefore asked that they be governed by Hindu law in matters of inheritance. The High Court had disallowed this contention on the ground that the parties are members of the Sawara tribe, which is a notified tribe under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. The Bench explained that the lists made under Articles 341 and 342 are to be amended only with the permission of the President. So, naturally, for a tribe to be notified as a scheduled tribe, a notification to that effect has to be issued and vice versa, i.e. for a tribe to be de-notified as well. The High Court noted that the parties did not produce any notification demonstrating that the Sawara tribe stands de-notified.

“The HSA, 1956, at the very outset, details as to whom the legislation would apply, and it clearly states that scheduled castes and tribes shall be outside its purview of application”, the Bench said while further adding, “Therefore, the Courts below clearly erred on this count, and the High Court took the correct view.”

Reference was made to Section 2(2) which says that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs. “The words of the section are explicit”, the Bench said.

On the applicability of principle of justice, equity and good conscience, the Bench relied on the judgment in M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5 J.) v. Suresh Das (2020) wherein it has been observed that where the rights of the parties are not governed by a particular personal law, or where the personal law is silent or incapable of being ascertained by a court, where a code has a lacuna, or where the source of law fails or requires to be supplemented, justice, equity and good conscience may properly be referred to. Reference was also made to the judgment in Kamla Neti v. LAO (2023) to reiterate the recommendation/suggestion made therein to the Central Government to look into pathways to secure the right of survivorship to female tribals.

“Having considered the pronouncements of this Court as aforesaid, and keeping in view the fact that Mardan passed away in the year 1951, that is, prior to the enactment of HSA, 1956, we find no error in the judgment of the High Court applying the provisions of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 and more particularly Section 6 thereof which postulates the application of the principle of justice, equity and good conscience, to account for possibilities not covered by Section 5 of the Act”, it said.

Thus, finding the appeal to be bereft of merit, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1005)

Click here to read/download Judgment