The Supreme Court has ruled that the legal heirs of a tribal woman were entitled to a share in the property of their maternal grandfather.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that denying a woman her share in her father’s property, when the custom was silent, would violate her right to equality and exacerbate gender division & discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out.
The Apex Court passed the order on a petition challenging a Chhattisgarh High Court order, dismissing the suit of partition filed by the appellant-plaintiffs.
Noting that no custom of female succession could be established by the appellant-plaintiffs, the top court of the country said it was equally true that a custom to the contrary also could not be shown in the slightest, much less proved.
Appearing for the appellants-plaintiffs, Advocate Padmesh Mishra apprised the Bench that they were the legal heirs of one Dhaiya, a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. They sought the partition of a property belonging to their maternal grandfather. Since their mother was one of the six children – five sons and one daughter, she was entitled to an equal share in the scheduled property.
As per the Counsel, in October 1992, some defendants refused to make a partition, prompting the appellant-plaintiffs to approach the trial court seeking a declaration of title and partition of the suit property.
The trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the mother of the appellant-plaintiffs had no right in the property of her father.
The verdict was later upheld by the First Appellate Court. The appellants-plaintiffs filed an appeal under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the High Court.
The High Court also rejected their appeal on the grounds that the appellant-plaintiffs seeking partition of property had failed to establish their right over such property by way of custom, showing that a female heir was also entitled thereto.
The appellants-plaintiffs then moved the Apex Court.