Summary
The heirs of a Scheduled Tribe woman sued for partition of her father's property, and all three courts below dismissed the suit because no custom entitling daughters to inherit had been proved. The Court held that the Hindu Succession Act does not apply to Scheduled Tribes, that in the absence of any proved custom either way Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 (justice, equity and good conscience) governs, that the 2018 repeal of that Act did not affect the right which had already accrued, and that denying the daughter a share when custom is silent would violate Article 14; her heirs were held entitled to an equal share.
Issues
- Whether a Scheduled Tribe woman, or her legal heirs, is entitled to an equal share in her father's property when no custom of female succession or of its exclusion has been proved.
- Whether Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 could be applied although the Act was repealed in 2018.
- Whether denial of inheritance to the female heir on the basis of an assumed exclusionary custom violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(2), Hindu Succession Act, 1956The Act unequivocally excludes members of Scheduled Tribes from its application unless the Central Government directs otherwise; Hindu law therefore had no application to the parties. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Section 6, Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875In cases not provided for by any other law in force, courts must act according to justice, equity and good conscience; as the parties were governed neither by Hindu nor Muslim law and no custom was proved, the provision applied and had to be applied by the High Court. (¶¶ 15, 17, 18, 29)
- Section 4 (savings), Repealing and Amending Act, 2018 (Act No. 4 of 2018)The saving clause preserves rights already accrued before the repeal; the mother's right accrued on her father's death about thirty years before the plaint, so the High Court was mistaken in holding that the 1875 Act could not be applied because it stood repealed in March 2018. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Articles 14, 15(1), 38 and 46, Constitution of IndiaThere is no rational nexus or reasonable classification for granting succession only to males where no legal prohibition is shown; Article 15(1), with Articles 38 and 46, reflects the constitutional ethos against discrimination of women, so denying the daughter her share when custom is silent violates her right to equality. (¶¶ 20, 27, 28, 29)
- Amendment making daughters coparceners, Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005Referred to, with the statement of objects and reasons, as instructive of the move towards gender equality in succession, though the Act itself does not apply to Scheduled Tribes. (¶ 26)
Held
- The question whether the parties had adopted Hindu customs was no longer in play, and Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act excludes Scheduled Tribes; Hindu law therefore has no application. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- A custom must be proved to be applied; the courts below proceeded on the misplaced assumption that an exclusionary custom existed and required the plaintiffs to prove otherwise, when inclusion could equally have been presumed and the defendants asked to show that women could not inherit; this patriarchal predisposition was an inference from Hindu law with no place in the case. (¶ 13)
- The High Court's view that the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 could not be applied because of its repeal in 2018 was mistaken: Section 4 of the repealing Act saves rights already accrued, and the mother's right, which crystallised on her father's death about thirty years before the plaint, was unaffected by the Act's removal from the statute book. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The principle of justice, equity and good conscience applies only where there is a void in the law, as here where no custom either way was shown; it is an open-ended principle to be applied contextually, and customs, like the law, cannot remain stuck in time or be used as a refuge to deprive others of their rights. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- Apart from that principle, denial of succession to women alone, absent any legal prohibition, violates Article 14 as there is no rational nexus or reasonable classification; unless otherwise prescribed in law, denying a female heir a right in property only exacerbates gender discrimination which the law should weed out. (¶¶ 20, 27)
- Although the plaintiffs could not establish a custom of female succession, no custom to the contrary was shown either; denying the mother her share when custom is silent would violate her right to equality vis-a-vis her brothers, and her heirs were therefore entitled to an equal share in keeping with justice, equity and good conscience read with Article 14. (¶¶ 28, 29)
Result
Appeal allowed; judgments of the trial court, first appellate court and High Court set aside to the extent they denied the appellant-plaintiffs an equal share; appellants, as the daughter's legal heirs, held entitled to an equal share in the property; pending applications disposed of; no costs.