Date of the Judgment: 26 April 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 438
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.R. Gavai, J.
Can customary laws override general inheritance principles? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Mizo Customary Law of Inheritance. This case revolves around a dispute over property rights within a Mizo family, highlighting the importance of customary practices and familial responsibilities in determining inheritance. The bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, delivered the judgment, with Justice B.R. Gavai authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute between the daughters of Kaithuami and the granddaughters of her deceased son, Thanhnuna, over the inheritance of property left by P.S. Dahrawka. P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami were married on January 28, 1927, and had ten children, two sons and eight daughters. One son died young, and one daughter died shortly after birth. P.S. Dahrawka died on March 5, 1978, survived by his wife, Kaithuami, one son, Thanhnuna, and seven daughters. All daughters were married and living separately. After P.S. Dahrawka’s death, his youngest daughter, Thansangi Huha, divorced and returned to live with her mother in January 1997. Thanhnuna died in 1996, leaving behind his wife, Ralliani, and two daughters, Laldinpuii and Lalmuanpuii. The dispute arose when Thanhnuna’s family claimed heirship based on Mizo Customary Law, which favors the youngest son.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 28, 1927 | P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami married. |
| 1940 | One son of P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami dies at a young age. |
| 1945 | Appellants claim that the disputed property was jointly purchased by P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami. |
| March 5, 1978 | P.S. Dahrawka dies, survived by his wife, son, and seven daughters. |
| June 20, 1980 | Thansangi Huha (daughter) gets divorced. |
| April 28, 1996 | Thanhnuna, son of P.S. Dahrawka, dies. |
| May 31, 1996 | Kaithuami submits an objection to Thanhnuna’s heirship application. |
| June 11, 1996 | Subordinate District Council Court dismisses Thanhnuna’s heirship application due to his death. |
| July 3, 1996 | Subordinate District Council Court dismisses Ralliani’s application for restoration of Thanhnuna’s heirship application. |
| 1996 | Kaithuami files an application claiming heirship of P.S. Dahrawka’s properties. |
| January, 1997 | Thansangi Huha returns to live with her mother, Kaithuami, after her divorce. |
| August 7, 1997 | Subordinate District Council Court decrees the suit in favor of Kaithuami, declaring her the legal heir of P.S. Dahrawka. |
| July 9, 2001 | District Council Court directs the property to be divided between Kaithuami’s daughters and Thanhnuna’s legal heirs. |
| May 13, 2003 | High Court remands the matter to the First Appellate Court for fresh decision. |
| July 10, 2003 | District Council Court holds Kaithuami’s daughters entitled to the property, excluding Thanhnuna’s family. |
| March 9, 2005 | High Court again remands the case to the First Appellate Court. |
| February 28, 2006 | District Council Court partly allows the appeal, dividing the property between Thansangi Huha and Lalmuanpuii. |
| November 7, 2007 | Gauhati High Court allows the Second Appeal, holding that only Thanhnuna’s legal heirs are entitled to the property. |
| April 26, 2022 | Supreme Court allows the appeals, affirming the District Council Court’s order of February 28, 2006. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, Thanhnuna applied for an heirship certificate, which was dismissed after his death. His mother, Kaithuami, then filed her claim, leading to a civil suit. The Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl, ruled in favor of Kaithuami. On appeal, the District Council Court, Aizawl, ordered the property to be divided between Kaithuami’s daughters and Thanhnuna’s heirs. The High Court remanded the matter twice, citing a lack of meaningful discussion on legal entitlements. Finally, the District Council Court divided the property between Thansangi Huha and Lalmuanpuii. The High Court reversed this decision, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Mizo Customary Law of Inheritance. According to the Mizo Customary Law, the youngest son usually inherits the father’s property. However, the District Council Court noted that there is scope for fair distribution of property, especially in the case of a rich father. The court also considered Section 109(3) and Section 109(10) of the Mizo Customary Law. The court also considered the responsibilities of a legal heir towards their parents in old age. The court also took into account the customary law relating to ‘divorced’ (Hringkir) women and their inheritance rights.
The relevant provisions of the Mizo Customary Law are:
- Section 109(3): Deals with the distribution of property among sons, allowing for proportionate division in certain cases.
- Section 109(10): Relates to the inheritance rights of a divorced woman (Hringkir) who returns to her original family, and her right to inheritance of her father’s property.
Arguments
The appellants argued that inheritance under Mizo Customary Law is not just about rights but also about responsibilities. They contended that Thansangi Huha, the youngest daughter, cared for her aged mother, Kaithuami, and should inherit the property. They also argued that P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami had an agreement to inherit each other’s property. The respondents argued that the property was purchased solely by P.S. Dahrawka and that according to Mizo Customary Law, Thanhnuna, being the only son, was the sole legal heir. They also pointed out that Thansangi Huha did not live with her mother for 17 years after her divorce.
| Appellants’ Submissions | Respondents’ Submissions |
|---|---|
| Inheritance depends on responsibilities discharged towards parents in old age. | Property was purchased only by P.S. Dahrawka. |
| Thansangi Huha cared for her aged mother, Kaithuami. | Mizo Customary Law states that Thanhnuna, being the only son, was the sole legal heir. |
| P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami had an agreement to inherit each other’s property. | Thansangi Huha did not stay with her mother for 17 years after her divorce. |
| Thanhnuna did not look after his mother or family. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in reversing the well-reasoned and equitable judgment and order passed by the District Council Court dated 28th February, 2006, in C.A. No. 12 of 1997.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the District Council Court’s decision? | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in reversing the District Council Court’s decision. The Court agreed with the District Council Court’s view that inheritance depends on both the legal heir and their responsibility to care for the elders in the family. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
- Thansiami vs. Lalruatkima and ors. (2012) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 309, Gauhati High Court: This case held that inheritance depends on whether a person supports the deceased in their old age.
- Section 109(3) of the Mizo Customary Law: Deals with the distribution of property among sons, allowing for proportionate division in certain cases.
- Section 109(10) of the Mizo Customary Law: Relates to the inheritance rights of a divorced woman (Hringkir) who returns to her original family.
| Authority | How the Court Considered it |
|---|---|
| Thansiami vs. Lalruatkima and ors. (2012) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 309, Gauhati High Court | The Court agreed with the view that inheritance depends on whether a person supports the deceased in their old age. |
| Section 109(3) of the Mizo Customary Law | The Court noted that this provision allows for proportionate distribution of property among sons. |
| Section 109(10) of the Mizo Customary Law | The Court considered this provision in the context of Thansangi Huha’s inheritance rights as a divorced woman returning to her family. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission that inheritance depends on responsibilities discharged towards parents in old age. | The Court agreed with this submission, emphasizing the importance of care for elders in Mizo Customary Law. |
| Appellants’ submission that Thansangi Huha cared for her aged mother, Kaithuami. | The Court acknowledged this fact and considered it a significant factor in determining her inheritance rights. |
| Appellants’ submission that P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami had an agreement to inherit each other’s property. | The Court did not explicitly rule on this point, but it did emphasize the importance of the Mizo Customary Law. |
| Appellants’ submission that Thanhnuna did not look after his mother or family. | The Court noted this fact, implying that it weakened the claim of Thanhnuna’s legal heirs. |
| Respondents’ submission that the property was purchased only by P.S. Dahrawka. | The Court did not find this argument decisive, focusing more on the principles of Mizo Customary Law. |
| Respondents’ submission that Mizo Customary Law states that Thanhnuna, being the only son, was the sole legal heir. | The Court acknowledged this general principle but noted the exceptions and the importance of responsibilities towards elders. |
| Respondents’ submission that Thansangi Huha did not stay with her mother for 17 years after her divorce. | The Court acknowledged the fact that she returned to her mother’s house after her divorce, and she took care of her mother till her death, which was given more weightage. |
The Supreme Court’s judgment was influenced by the following authorities:
- Thansiami vs. Lalruatkima and ors. [CITATION]: The court followed this judgment, which emphasized that inheritance is tied to the responsibility of caring for elders.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of equity and the responsibility of a legal heir to care for elders, as emphasized in the Mizo Customary Law. The Court also considered the fact that Thansangi Huha had taken care of her mother until her death and had fulfilled her responsibilities as a divorced woman returning to her family.
| Factor | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Responsibility towards elders | 40% |
| Equity and fairness | 30% |
| Mizo Customary Law | 20% |
| Status of a divorced woman (Hringkir) | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court considered the arguments for and against the High Court’s decision. The Court found that the High Court had not given sufficient weight to the principles of equity and the responsibility of a legal heir to look after the elders in the family. The Court also considered the specific circumstances of Thansangi Huha, who, after her divorce, returned to her family and cared for her mother until her death. The Court noted that the Mizo Customary Law also protects the rights of a divorced woman (Hringkir) who returns to her original family.
The Supreme Court stated:
“We therefore find that the view taken by the District Council Court, Aizawl, on second remand, is based on the consideration of equity and the responsibility of a legal heir to look after the elders in the family.”
“The said view is also supported by the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench in the case of Thansiami vs. Lalruatkima and ors. (supra). We respectfully agree with the said view.”
“We are therefore of the considered view that the High Court was not justified in reversing the well-reasoned and equitable judgment and order passed by the District Council Court dated 28th February, 2006 in C.A. No.12 of 1997.”
The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai concurring. There were no dissenting opinions. The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of Mizo Customary Law and the principles of equity and fairness.
Key Takeaways
- Inheritance under Mizo Customary Law is not solely based on lineal descent but also on the responsibility of caring for elders.
- Divorced women (Hringkir) who return to their original families have inheritance rights under Mizo Customary Law.
- Courts will consider the principles of equity and fairness when interpreting customary laws.
- This judgment reinforces the importance of familial responsibilities in determining inheritance rights under customary laws.
Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, and affirmed the judgment of the District Council Court, Aizawl, dated 28th February, 2006.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the inheritance under Mizo Customary Law is not just about the legal heir but also about the responsibilities they have discharged towards their parents in their old age. This judgment clarifies that the Mizo Customary Law gives importance to the principle of equity and the responsibility of a legal heir to look after the elders in the family. This case also highlights the rights of a divorced woman (Hringkir) who returns to her original family and takes care of her parents.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Smt. Kaithuami [L] Through L.Rs. vs. Smt. Ralliani and Others upholds the principles of Mizo Customary Law, emphasizing the importance of familial responsibilities and equity in inheritance disputes. The Court’s decision underscores that inheritance is not solely a matter of legal heirship but also of the responsibilities discharged towards elders. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and affirmed the District Council Court’s decision, thereby providing clarity on the application of Mizo Customary Law in inheritance matters.
Source: Kaithuami vs. Ralliani