New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday held that a tribal woman or her legal heirs would be entitled to an equal share in ancestral property.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi said denying the woman heir a right in the property only exacerbated gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out “When applying the principle of justice, equity and good conscience, the courts have to be mindful of the above and apply this otherwise open-ended principle contextually,” the bench said.
The top court observed in the present case, if the views of the subordinate court were upheld, the woman and her successors would be denied the right to property on the basis of the absence of a positive assertion to such inheritance in custom.
“However, customs too, like the law, cannot remain stuck in time and others cannot be allowed to take refuge in customs or hide behind them to deprive others of their right,” it added.
The verdict came on an appeal filed by the legal heirs of a woman belonging to a scheduled tribe.
They sought the partition of a property belonging to their maternal grandfather.
The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the plea by the legal heirs, saying their mother had no right to the property of her father.
It was held for the reason that no evidence had been led to show that the children of a woman heir were also entitled to property.
A provision of the Hindu Succession Act lays down that the law of succession should not apply to the members of scheduled tribes unless the Union of India, by notification in the official gazette, otherwise directs.
The provision stipulates that a daughter in a scheduled tribe community cannot legally demand her share in the father’s property.
The top court’s judgement said the issue also involved the question of violation of Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution.
“There appears to be no rational nexus or reasonable classification for only males to be granted succession over the property of their forebears and not women, more so in the case where no prohibition to such effect can be shown to be prevalent as per law.”
The bench went on, “Article 15(1) states that the State shall not discriminate against any person on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
This, along with Articles 38 and 46, points to the collective ethos of the Constitution in ensuring that there is no discrimination against women.”
The top court said denying the mother her share in her father’s property, when the custom was silent, would violate her right to equality vis-à-vis her brothers or those of her legal heirs vis-à-vis their cousin.
“Keeping with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, read along with the overarching effect of Article 14 of the Constitution, the appellant-plaintiffs, being her legal heirs, are entitled to their equal share in the property,” it held.
PNN
