Ram Charan v. Sukhram
“Landmark Judgment Upholding Tribal Women's Equal Inheritance Rights Under Constitutional Morality”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court held that tribal women and their heirs are entitled to equal inheritance rights when no custom explicitly prohibits the same. The Court ruled that denying inheritance to female heirs of Scheduled Tribes in the absence of a contrary custom amounts to gender discrimination violating Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution. The judgment set aside all lower court decisions that had denied the appellants their share in the ancestral property of their maternal grandfather, Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond, a member of the Gond Scheduled Tribe.
The Bottom Line
Tribal women cannot be denied inheritance rights merely because there is no proven custom granting them such rights. Silence of custom on female succession cannot justify exclusion. Equality under Articles 14 and 15(1) is the presumed baseline, and courts must apply justice, equity, and good conscience when no codified law governs Scheduled Tribe succession.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Partition Suit Filed
Appellants (legal heirs of Dhaiya) filed a partition suit seeking their mother's share in ancestral property of Bhajju Gond
Partition Suit Filed
Appellants (legal heirs of Dhaiya) filed a partition suit seeking their mother's share in ancestral property of Bhajju Gond
Trial Court Dismissal
Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that no custom granting succession rights to tribal women was proved
Trial Court Dismissal
Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that no custom granting succession rights to tribal women was proved
First Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal
First Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court's dismissal of the partition suit
First Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal
First Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court's dismissal of the partition suit
Central Provinces Laws Act Repealed
The Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 was repealed by Repeal Act No. 4 of 2018, raising questions about the saving of accrued rights
Central Provinces Laws Act Repealed
The Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 was repealed by Repeal Act No. 4 of 2018, raising questions about the saving of accrued rights
High Court Rejects Appeal
Chhattisgarh High Court rejected the appeal, holding that Hindu Succession Act excluded Scheduled Tribes and no custom favouring female succession was proved
High Court Rejects Appeal
Chhattisgarh High Court rejected the appeal, holding that Hindu Succession Act excluded Scheduled Tribes and no custom favouring female succession was proved
Supreme Court Allows Appeal
Supreme Court set aside all lower court judgments and declared appellants entitled to equal share in ancestral property, holding that denial of tribal women's inheritance violates Articles 14 and 15(1)
Supreme Court Allows Appeal
Supreme Court set aside all lower court judgments and declared appellants entitled to equal share in ancestral property, holding that denial of tribal women's inheritance violates Articles 14 and 15(1)
The Story
The dispute arose over the ancestral property of Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond, a member of the Gond Scheduled Tribe. Bhajju had six children — five sons and one daughter, Dhaiya. The appellants are the legal heirs of Dhaiya, who claimed that their mother was entitled to an equal share in her father's ancestral property.
In 1992, the appellants initiated a partition suit seeking their mother Dhaiya's share in Bhajju Gond's ancestral property. The respondents — the sons and their heirs — opposed the claim on the ground that no custom of the Gond tribe recognized a daughter's right to inherit ancestral property.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 2008, holding that the appellants had failed to prove any custom granting succession rights to tribal women. The First Appellate Court upheld this dismissal in 2009. The appellants then approached the Chhattisgarh High Court, which also rejected the appeal in 2022, reasoning that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 excluded Scheduled Tribes from its operation, and in the absence of any proven custom favouring female succession, the claim could not be sustained.
The appellants approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the denial of inheritance rights to a tribal woman in the absence of any prohibitory custom amounted to gender discrimination and violated fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning three decades of adverse decisions and declaring the appellants entitled to an equal share.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Dhaiya was entitled to equal share as a daughter
The appellants argued that Dhaiya, as a daughter of Bhajju Gond, deserved an equal share in the ancestral property and that her legal heirs are entitled to inherit her share.
Justice, equity, and good conscience mandate equal treatment
In the absence of codified law governing Scheduled Tribe succession, Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 required courts to apply principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, which mandate gender equality in inheritance.
Absence of prohibitory custom means equality must prevail
The appellants argued that denying women's inheritance rights without any established custom prohibiting them entrenches patriarchal discrimination contrary to the Constitution. The absence of a positive custom cannot be treated as evidence of a negative custom.
Parallel with Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005
The appellants drew parallels with the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which granted daughters coparcenary rights, reflecting the constitutional mandate of gender equality in property matters.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Hindu Succession Act excludes Scheduled Tribes
The respondents argued that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 explicitly excluded Scheduled Tribes from its operation, and therefore the appellants cannot claim inheritance rights under it.
No custom proved granting inheritance to tribal women
The respondents contended that the appellants failed to prove any custom of the Gond tribe that recognized a daughter's right to inherit ancestral property, and without such proof, the claim must fail.
Gond community governed by own traditions
Citing Bihari v. Yashwantin, the respondents argued that the Gond community is governed by its own traditions and customs, which do not recognize female succession to ancestral property.
Custom must be strictly proved
Relying on Salekh Chand v. Satya Gupta and Aliyathammuda Pookoya v. Cheriyakoya, the respondents argued that custom must be strictly proved and cannot be assumed or inferred.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court conducted a comprehensive analysis examining the intersection of tribal customary law, statutory exclusions, and constitutional equality principles. The Court noted that the lower courts had committed a fundamental error by treating the absence of a custom granting women inheritance rights as equivalent to the existence of a custom denying them such rights. The Court held that this inversion of the equality principle was unconstitutional. Relying on Articles 14 and 15(1), the Court established that customs cannot remain static in perpetuating patriarchal exclusion, and constitutional morality must guide the interpretation of customary practices. The Court further held that rights crystallized under Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 — which mandated decisions based on justice, equity, and good conscience — survived the statute's repeal and remained enforceable. The judgment bridges the critical gap created by Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which excludes Scheduled Tribes from its ambit, by invoking constitutional supremacy to ensure gender justice.
Denial of rights in the absence of a contrary custom amounts to gender discrimination.
Establishes that the burden is on those denying rights to prove a prohibitory custom, not on women to prove an enabling custom.
Customs cannot remain static in perpetuating patriarchal exclusion.
Mandates that customary law must evolve in conformity with constitutional values and cannot be frozen in time.
Constitutional morality overrides patriarchal customs.
Places the Constitution above all customary practices and traditions that discriminate on the basis of gender.
Absence of positive evidence of women's rights cannot justify presuming exclusion.
Reverses the traditional approach where silence of custom was used against women claiming inheritance.
Excluding female heirs from inheritance is discriminatory, even for tribal societies, when no law otherwise has been formulated for governance.
Directly addresses the gap left by the Hindu Succession Act's exclusion of Scheduled Tribes and fills it with constitutional equality.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The judgments of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and the Chhattisgarh High Court were set aside. The appellants — legal heirs of Dhaiya — were declared entitled to an equal share in the ancestral property of Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond.
Directions Issued
- When Scheduled Tribes lack codified law or proven custom governing succession, courts must apply justice, equity, and good conscience guided by constitutional principles
- Accrued rights crystallized before statute repeal remain enforceable despite the repeal of the parent statute
- Custom silence on female succession cannot justify exclusion of women from inheritance — equality is the presumed baseline
- Courts must read customs harmoniously with constitutional gender justice principles under Articles 14 and 15(1)
- Succession law interpretations must harmonize with the spirit of Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution
Key Legal Principles Established
Tribal women and their heirs are entitled to equal inheritance rights when no custom prohibits the same.
Silence of custom on female succession cannot be interpreted as a presumption of exclusion — equality is the default.
Constitutional morality overrides patriarchal customary practices that discriminate on the basis of gender.
The exclusion of Scheduled Tribes from the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 under Section 2(2) does not extinguish their constitutional right to equality in inheritance.
Where no codified law governs Scheduled Tribe succession, courts must apply justice, equity, and good conscience guided by Articles 14 and 15(1).
Rights crystallized under a statute before its repeal remain enforceable — repeal does not extinguish accrued or vested rights.
Customs must evolve with constitutional morality and cannot remain frozen to perpetuate gender exclusion.
Courts cannot shield patriarchal practices behind tradition when constitutional values demand equality.
The burden of proof lies on those denying inheritance rights to establish a prohibitory custom, not on women to prove an enabling custom.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- Tribal women have equal inheritance rights. If you belong to a Scheduled Tribe, a daughter has the same right to ancestral property as a son, unless there is a proven custom specifically denying that right.
- The absence of a custom granting women inheritance rights does not mean they have no rights. Equality is now the presumed baseline.
- If your family denied a woman her share of property claiming tribal custom does not allow it, this judgment provides the legal basis to challenge that denial.
- Rights that vested under earlier laws are not lost simply because those laws were later repealed.
- This judgment applies broadly to Scheduled Tribes across India where no specific succession law has been enacted.
- You can approach the courts for partition of ancestral property even if decades have passed, as the appellants in this case fought for over 30 years.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 14
Constitution of India
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
Relevance: The primary constitutional provision invoked to strike down the denial of inheritance rights to tribal women, establishing equality as the default position.
Article 15(1)
Constitution of India
“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”
Relevance: Prohibits discrimination on the ground of sex, forming the constitutional basis for declaring that exclusion of tribal women from inheritance violates gender equality.
Articles 38 and 46
Constitution of India
“Directive Principles concerning social justice and the promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections.”
Relevance: Directive Principles supporting the Court's interpretation that the State must actively promote the welfare of Scheduled Tribes, including ensuring gender justice within these communities.
Article 366(25)
Constitution of India
“Definition of Scheduled Tribes as those deemed under Article 342.”
Relevance: Defines the constitutional status of Scheduled Tribes, relevant to the application of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Statutory Provisions
Section 2(2)
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
“Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.”
Relevance: The key provision excluding Scheduled Tribes from the Hindu Succession Act, which created the legal vacuum that the Court addressed by invoking constitutional equality principles.
Section 6
Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875
“In cases not provided for by any enactment for the time being in force, the decision shall be according to justice, equity, and good conscience.”
Relevance: The provision under which the appellants' rights had crystallized, mandating courts to apply equitable principles where no specific law exists for Scheduled Tribes.
Amendment to Section 6
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
“Grants daughters equal coparcenary rights as sons in joint Hindu family property.”
Relevance: Cited by the appellants as reflecting the broader constitutional mandate of gender equality in property rights, drawing a parallel to the tribal context.
Section 100
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
“Provides for second appeal to the High Court on substantial questions of law.”
Relevance: The procedural provision under which the Chhattisgarh High Court entertained the appeal before the matter reached the Supreme Court.
Related Cases & Precedents
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
cited(1978) 1 SCC 248
Foundation of equality jurisprudence under the Constitution, establishing that Article 14 embodies the principle of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India
cited(2017) 9 SCC 1
Supreme Court held that personal law practices violating fundamental rights are unconstitutional, establishing the principle that constitutional equality prevails over personal and customary law.
Air India v. Nergesh Meerza
cited(1981) 4 SCC 335
Landmark precedent on gender discrimination, holding that differentiation solely based on sex violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das (Ayodhya Case)
cited(2020) 1 SCC 1
Cited for principles on the interplay between customary rights and constitutional values.
State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa
cited(1974) 1 SCC 19
Cited for the principle of equality and non-discrimination in the application of laws.
Salekh Chand v. Satya Gupta
distinguished(2008) 13 SCC 119
Distinguished on the issue of proof of custom; the Court held that the strict proof requirement cannot be used to deny constitutional rights.
Aliyathammuda Pookoya v. Cheriyakoya
distinguished(2019) 16 SCC 1
Distinguished on the question of custom overriding statutory provisions, with the Court clarifying that no custom can override constitutional guarantees of equality.
Daduram v. Bhuri Bai
followedSA No. 270 of 2023
Followed for recognizing inheritance rights of tribal women under principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
Tirith Kumar v. Daduram
followed2024 SCC OnLine SC 3810
Followed as a recent precedent supporting equal inheritance rights for tribal women.
Ratanlal v. Sundarabai Govardhandas Samsuka
cited(2018) 11 SCC 119
Cited on the principles of interpreting customary law in light of statutory and constitutional provisions.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.