New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision granting a share in the disputed property to the daughters of a common ancestor of the Sawara tribe, who passed away before the Hindu Succession Act (HSA), 1956, came into force.
The High Court invoked the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience in its ruling.
The Apex Court clarified that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not apply to Scheduled Tribes as explicitly stated in Section 2(2) of the Act.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol, reiterated, “The HSA, 1956, cannot apply to Scheduled Tribes. This position of law is well settled.”
The case centred on a dispute over land ownership between two sides of the same family. The common ancestor, Chuchrung, had two sons—Mardan and Puni Ram. After Mardan died in 1951, the legal heirs of Puni Ram sought a declaration that the suit property belonged to them and an injunction against the respondents. While the lower courts ruled in favour of the appellants, deeming them “sufficiently Hinduised,” the High Court overturned the findings.
The High Court ruled that the daughters and their successors-in-interest from Mardan’s lineage were entitled to a half share in the property, as the Sawara tribe remains a notified Scheduled Tribe under Article 342 of the Constitution.
The Apex Court upheld this decision, emphasising that no notification was produced to suggest that the Sawara tribe had been de-notified.
The bench on the applicability of the principle of justice, equity, and good conscience relied on the judgement in M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple) v. Suresh Das (2020), wherein it has been observed that where a particular personal law does not govern the rights of the parties, 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.
It also acknowledged the recommendation to the Central Government to ensure survivorship rights for female tribals.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s application of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, to address gaps not covered by the HSA, 1956.
