Case Review: Ram Charan v. Sukhram

Author’s Details

Name: Sangam Kumar (B.A. L.L.B Hons. 3rd Sem) of University of Allahabad

Name: Ambrish Kumar Baranwal (LLM) of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University

Case Details

Name: Ram Charan v. Sukhram

Citation: [2025] 8 S.C.R. 272

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Judgement: 17 July 2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymala Bagchi

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India upheld the right of a Scheduled Tribe woman and her legal heirs to inherit ancestral property even in the absence of a legal enactment or custom governing the same in the case of Ram Charan v. Sukhram. The issue arose as the appellant-plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of a tribal woman belonging to the Gond community, were denied succession rights of the property belonging to their maternal grandfather when the defendants refused the partition of the property.

Facts of the Case

The appellant-plaintiffs were the legal heirs of Dhaiya, a Scheduled Tribe woman belonging to the Gond community. She had five siblings who refused to make a partition of the property belonging to their father, Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond, denying Dhaiya and her legal heirs the right to an equal share in the property. The appellant-plaintiffs approached the Supreme Court aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Chattisgarh High Court affirming the judgments of the lower courts.

Procedural History

Trial Court

The appellant-plaintiffs approached the Trial Court which by a judgment dated 29^th February, 2008, dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that succession rights could be given to females of the Gond community only if it could be evidenced that there was a certified custom allowing the same, which the appellant-plaintiffs failed to prove.

Another ground for the dismissal of the suit was that the claim of the plaintiffs that they followed Hindu traditions and were therefore governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, did not stand pursuant to Section 2(2) of the said enactment which barred the application of the Act to Scheduled Tribes unless directed by the Central Government.

First Appellate Court

On appeal, the Court by its judgment dated 21^st April, 2009, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and held that the plaintiffs showed no evidence proving that female children of their community were entitled to inherit the property of their father.

High Court

Accordingly, an appeal was filed before the Chattisgarh High Court which upheld the decisions of the lower courts. The Court on 1^st July, 2022, held that the appellant-plaintiffs seeking partition of the property had failed to establish their rights over the property by way of custom. As regards the argument of the appellant-plaintiffs that they had adopted the Hindu traditions, the Court held that there was no evidence to that effect brought on record, and hence both the Courts below had rightly rejected that contention.

Issue Involved

Whether a tribal woman (or her legal heirs) would be entitled to an equal share in her ancestral property or not?

Analysis

The Court examined two main questions to decide the succession rights of the appellant-plaintiffs: first, were they governed by the Hindu law of succession, i.e., the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; and second, did the customs of the Gond community allow them to inherit ancestral property.

1.       Applicability of Hindu Law

The Court clarified that in the present case, the question of the parties having adopted Hindu customs and way of life was “no longer in play”. The Court made this conclusion as Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, clearly specifies that nothing in the Act would apply to the Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government by a notification in the Official Gazette otherwise directs.

2.       Applicability of Custom

The Court held that since there was no application of Hindu law, the next possibility to be considered is that of the application of custom.

2.1.  Misplaced Assumption

The Court accepted that for custom to be applicable, it had to be proved, but the same was not done in the present case. However, the Courts below worked under a misplaced assumption that there was an exclusionary custom under which women were not entitled to any inheritance and expected the appellant-plaintiffs to prove otherwise. An alternative to this could have been a presumption of an inclusionary custom wherein the defendants were expected to prove that daughters were not entitled to inheritance rights. The Court held that this “patriarchal predisposition had no place in the present case”.

2.2.  Justice, Equity and Good Conscience

The Court went on to examine the validity of the argument for the application of justice, equity and good conscience in the absence of any law or custom. These principles find statutory recognition under Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875. Though the legislation was repealed in 2018, a saving clause in the repeal enactment, being Section 4 of the Repeal Act No. 4 of 2018, held that no right having been accrued prior to the repeal of the Act shall be affected thereby. Hence, the right of the appellant-plaintiffs would not be affected because of the revocation of the law as their maternal grandfather had died nearly 30 years before the filing of the plaint.

2.3.  Article 14

Apart from this general principle, the Court also found the judgments of the lower Courts to be a violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India which guarantees the right to equality. The Court found no rational nexus or reasonable classification for only males to be granted succession over the property of their forebears and not women. The Court also mentioned Article 15(1), which states that the State shall not discriminate against any person on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. This, along with Article 38 and 46, points to the collective ethos of the Constitution in ensuring that there is no discrimination against women.

Judgment

The Court, keeping in mind the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, read along with the overarching effect of Article 14, ultimately set aside the judgments of the Courts below and allowed the appeal. It remarked that 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 was held that denying the female heir a right in the property would only exacerbate the problem of gender discrimination. While the appellant-plaintiffs had failed to prove the existence of any custom that allowed female succession rights, it is also true that no custom to the contrary could be shown either. Thus, in the absence of any custom whatsoever, it denying the woman the inheritance right would violate her right to equality.