Supreme Court clarifies applicability of Hindu Succession Act to Scheduled Tribes: Tirith Kumar vs. Daduram (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 19th December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 1005

Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J., Sanjay Karol, J.

Can members of a Scheduled Tribe be governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a dispute over property rights within a family belonging to the Sawara tribe. The core issue was whether the Hindu Succession Act applies to Scheduled Tribes, or if their own customary laws should prevail. The Supreme Court held that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not automatically apply to Scheduled Tribes unless specifically notified by the Central Government. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol.

Case Background

The dispute revolves around a land ownership claim between two branches of the same family, all descendants of a common ancestor named Chuchrung. Chuchrung had two sons, Mardan and Puni Ram. The legal heirs of Puni Ram initiated legal action, seeking a declaration that the land, measuring 13.95 acres, belonged to them, and requested a permanent injunction against the other branch of the family. The core issue was whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA, 1956) applied to the parties, or if they were governed by their tribal customs.

The plaintiffs claimed that the land originally belonged to Mardan, who died before the HSA, 1956 came into force. They asserted that after Mardan’s death, Puni Ram took possession of the property. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed their rights as legal heirs of Mardan.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that both parties followed Hindu principles and that the death of Mardan occurred before the HSA, 1956 came into effect. The First Appellate Court upheld this decision. However, the High Court of Chhattisgarh reversed these findings in the Second Appeal. The High Court held that the parties, being members of the Sawara tribe (a notified Scheduled Tribe), were not governed by the HSA, 1956, unless a specific notification from the Central Government directed otherwise. The High Court applied principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, granting a share of the property to Mardan’s daughters and their descendants.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case is the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA, 1956), specifically Section 2(2) which states:

“2. Application of Act.― (1)This Act applies―
…
(2) 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.”

This section explicitly excludes members of Scheduled Tribes from the application of the HSA, 1956, unless the Central Government issues a specific notification to the contrary. The Court also considered Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, which deal with Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, respectively, and the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, specifically Sections 5 and 6. These sections provide for the application of justice, equity, and good conscience in cases not covered by specific laws.

Arguments

The appellants (legal heirs of Puni Ram) argued that they were sufficiently “Hinduised” and should be governed by Hindu law. They contended that they had given up their tribal customs and followed Hindu principles. The respondents (legal heirs of Mardan) argued that they were members of a Scheduled Tribe and therefore, the HSA, 1956 did not apply to them. They further argued that the High Court correctly applied the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

• Appellants’ Submissions:
  • The appellants argued that they had abandoned their tribal customs and were following Hindu customs.
  • They claimed that the lower courts had correctly applied Hindu law in determining inheritance.
  • They argued that the property was rightfully passed to the successors of Puni Ram.
• Respondents’ Submissions:
  • The respondents contended that they were members of the Sawara tribe, a notified Scheduled Tribe.
  • They argued that the HSA, 1956 did not apply to them as per Section 2(2) of the Act.
  • They supported the High Court’s decision to apply principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

Innovativeness of the argument: The respondents’ argument was innovative as they successfully argued for the application of principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, which allowed them to get a share in the property despite the inapplicability of the HSA, 1956.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 could be applied to the parties to the instant lis?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Specifies that the Act does not apply to Scheduled Tribes unless notified by the Central Government.
• Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India: Define the process for specifying Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Sections 5 and 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875: Provide for the application of justice, equity, and good conscience in cases not covered by specific laws.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore 1962 SCC OnLine SC 147: Used to understand the constitutional position regarding Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
• State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) 1 SCC 4: Used to clarify that the lists under Articles 341 and 342 can only be amended by the President.
• State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1860: Referenced in the context of Articles 341 and 342.
• Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996) 5 SCC 125: Used to highlight that Section 2(2) of the HSA, 1956, excludes Scheduled Tribes.
• Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG) v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 573: Used to reiterate the position that the HSA, 1956 does not apply to Scheduled Tribes.
• Bhuri v. Maroti 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 3173, Bhagwati v. Cheduram 2019 SCC OnLine Chh 209, and Bini B. (Dr.) v. Jayan P.R. 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 39489: Cited as examples of High Courts consistently adopting the position that the HSA, 1956 does not apply to Scheduled Tribes.
• M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple -5 J.) v. Suresh Das (2020) 1 SCC 1: Used to understand the concept of justice, equity, and good conscience.
• Saraswathi Ammal v. Jagadambal (1953) 1 SCC 362: Used to understand the application of justice, equity, and good conscience in the absence of custom or law.
• M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investments and Trading Pvt. Ltd. 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433: Used to explain the courts’ power to apply principles of justice, equity, and good conscience when the law is silent.
• Kamla Neti v. LAO (2023) 3 SCC 528: Distinguished on facts, stating that equity cannot supplant clear law, but not applicable in the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, explicitly excludes Scheduled Tribes from its purview unless the Central Government issues a notification to the contrary. The Court noted that the parties belonged to the Sawara tribe, a notified Scheduled Tribe, and no such notification was on record. The Court also highlighted the need to apply principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, especially in situations where the law is silent or does not provide a clear answer.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal provisions and their interpretation, with a lesser emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments for applying Hindu law based on the appellants being “Hinduised” but rejected it, emphasizing the explicit exclusion of Scheduled Tribes under Section 2(2) of the HSA, 1956. The Court also considered the dissenting judgment in Madhu Kishwar (supra) by Ramaswamy, J., which advocated for the application of general principles of justice, equity, and good conscience to Scheduled Tribes. The Court ultimately held that the High Court did not err in applying these principles.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment of M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple -5 J.) v. Suresh Das (2020) 1 SCC 1:
“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.”

The Supreme Court also quoted from the judgment of Saraswathi Ammal v. Jagadambal (1953) 1 SCC 362:
“In the absence of proof of existence of a custom governing
succession the decision of the case has to rest on the rules of justice,
equity and good conscience because admittedly no clear text of
Hindu law applies to such a case.”

The Supreme Court also quoted from the judgment of M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investments and Trading Pvt. Ltd. 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433:
“Where statute is silent and judicial intervention is required,
Courts strive to redress grievances according to what is perceived
to be principles of justice, equity and good conscience.”

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the outcome and the reasoning. The Court did not introduce any new doctrines but reaffirmed the existing legal position regarding the non-applicability of the HSA, 1956 to Scheduled Tribes and the role of justice, equity, and good conscience in such cases. The potential implication for future cases is that courts must consider the specific tribal status of parties and whether the Central Government has issued a notification applying the HSA, 1956 before applying the Act. The Court also emphasized the need to apply principles of justice, equity, and good conscience when the law is silent.

Key Takeaways

• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not automatically apply to members of Scheduled Tribes.
• A specific notification from the Central Government is required to apply the HSA, 1956 to Scheduled Tribes.
• Courts may apply principles of justice, equity, and good conscience in cases where the HSA, 1956 does not apply.
• This judgment reinforces the protection of tribal customs and laws.
• The Supreme Court reiterated the recommendation to the Central Government to examine the need to withdraw the exemptions provided under the Hindu Succession Act for Scheduled Tribes.

Directions

The Supreme Court reiterated the recommendation made in Kamla Neti v. LAO (2023) 3 SCC 528 to the Central Government to look into pathways to secure the right of survivorship to female tribals and consider amending the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act to make it applicable to Scheduled Tribes.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless specifically notified by the Central Government. The Supreme Court upheld the position that principles of justice, equity, and good conscience can be applied in cases where the HSA, 1956 does not apply, especially when dealing with succession rights of Scheduled Tribes. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has reiterated the need for the Central Government to consider amending the HSA, 1956 to include Scheduled Tribes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not apply to the parties as they are members of a Scheduled Tribe. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the constitutional provisions for Scheduled Tribes and the need to apply principles of justice, equity, and good conscience in matters of succession where specific laws do not apply. The Court also reiterated the recommendation to the Central Government to consider amending the HSA, 1956 to address the issue of survivorship rights for female tribals.