News Citation : 2016 LN (HC) 2016
March 24, 2026 : In a significant ruling, the High Court of Chhattisgarh has clarified that daughters from Scheduled Tribe communities cannot be denied inheritance rights unless a valid and proven customary law explicitly excludes them.
The decision came in a second appeal (SA No. 185 of 2004) decided on March 24, 2026, by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, involving a long-standing family dispute over ancestral land in Raigarh district.
The dispute arose between members of an Uraon tribal family over agricultural land measuring approximately 17.989 hectares. The plaintiffs, descendants of one branch of the family, had claimed a larger share in the property, arguing that under their community’s customary law, married daughters are not entitled to inherit property.
They relied on an alleged family arrangement dating back to 1984 and claimed that, in the absence of a male heir, the property should devolve upon the nearest male relatives.
Initially, the trial court accepted this argument and ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 did not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes and recognizing the claimed customary practice.
However, the first appellate court overturned the trial court’s decision. It held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of any binding custom that excludes daughters from inheritance. The appellate court also found flaws in the evidence and questioned the validity of the alleged family settlement.
Upholding the appellate court’s decision, the High Court made two important legal clarifications: First, it reaffirmed that under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, the law does not automatically apply to Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government issues a notification to that effect. Second, and more crucially, the Court emphasized that in the absence of a proven customary law, daughters cannot be excluded from inheritance rights.
The Court noted that the burden of proving such a custom lies heavily on the party asserting it. In this case, the plaintiffs failed to provide credible evidence. Their own witnesses admitted that daughters were sometimes given shares in property, which weakened their claim of a strict exclusionary custom.
The Court also observed that even the family’s past conduct, including earlier partitions, indicated that daughters were treated as having inheritance rights.
The High Court concluded that while statutory succession law may not apply automatically to Scheduled Tribes, inheritance disputes must still be resolved fairly. Without clear proof of a valid and consistent custom, daughters cannot be denied their share. As a result, the second appeal was dismissed, and the appellate court’s judgment in favour of the daughters was upheld.
This ruling reinforces a critical principle: customary law cannot override inheritance rights unless it is clearly established through strong and consistent evidence. It also signals judicial support for gender equity in inheritance, even within tribal communities where customary practices are often invoked.
Case Reference : SA No. 185 of 2004, Mangalu (Died through LRs) & Another v. Jhariyo & Others; Counsels: For Appellants: Mr. Ravindra Sharma and Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocates; For State: Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Deputy Advocate General; For Respondents No. 2-B & 8-B: Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate.
