Summary
The Supreme Court held that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not apply to members of the Sawara tribe, a notified Scheduled Tribe, in the absence of a Central Government notification under Section 2(2). It upheld the High Court's grant of a half share to the daughters of a tribal who died in 1951, applying justice, equity and good conscience under Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, and reiterated the call to the Central Government to consider securing equal succession rights for tribal women.
Issues
- Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 could be applied to parties belonging to a notified Scheduled Tribe on the footing that they had become sufficiently Hinduised.
- Whether, on the death of the common ancestor's son in 1951, his daughters and their successors could be given a share in the property on principles of justice, equity and good conscience under the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(2), Hindu Succession Act, 1956Read as explicitly excluding members of any Scheduled Tribe within Article 366(25) from the Act unless the Central Government otherwise directs by Gazette notification; with no such notification for the Sawara tribe, the Act could not apply, and the courts below erred in applying Hindu law. (¶¶ 5, 6, 6.1, 7)
- Articles 342 and 366(25), Constitution of IndiaA tribe is a Scheduled Tribe only if included in the Presidential order under Article 342, and it can be notified or de-notified only by notification; no notification de-notifying the Sawara tribe was produced. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- Sections 5 and 6, Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875Section 6 was read as applying the principle of justice, equity and good conscience to situations not covered by Section 5; the High Court rightly invoked it to give Mardan's daughters and their successors a half share. (¶ 9)
Held
- A tribe can be included in or excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes only by notification under Article 342; absent any notification de-notifying the Sawara tribe, the parties remained members of a Scheduled Tribe. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is explicit that the Act does not apply to members of a Scheduled Tribe unless the Central Government notifies otherwise; the trial and first appellate courts erred in applying Hindu law on a finding that the parties were sufficiently Hinduised, and the High Court took the correct view. (¶¶ 5, 6, 6.1, 6.2, 7)
- Justice, equity and good conscience supplement positive law and fill gaps where statute, personal law or proved custom is silent or inapplicable, enabling courts to mould relief for a just outcome. (¶¶ 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3)
- As the ancestor died in 1951, before the 1956 Act, the High Court committed no error in applying Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 and the principle of justice, equity and good conscience to award his daughters' line a half share in the suit property. (¶ 9)
- Kamla Neti v. LAO, holding that equity cannot supplant clear law, was distinguishable because it concerned apportionment of land acquisition compensation, whereas this case concerned succession; its recommendation that the Central Government consider securing equal succession rights for tribal women, including by amending the Hindu Succession Act, was reiterated. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's judgment granting the legal representatives of Mardan a half share in the suit property upheld, with the recommendation to the Central Government in Kamla Neti reiterated.