MADHU KISHWAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 477 · Decided: 11-10-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Amount Awarded

Judgment (excerpt)

MADHU KISHWAR AND ORS. 
A 
v • 
..._,_,. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
OCTOBER 11, 1991 
(RANGANATH MISRA, CJ. AND KULDIP SINGH, J.) 
B 
Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908: 
S.s. 7, 8-Scheduled Tribes--Succession to property--Confined to 
male in the male line-lnclusio11 of female heirs~ecessity for. 
c 
Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 confined succession to property 
to descendants in the male line of Scheduled Tribes covered by the Act. 
The petitioners who were the ladies belonging to the~Ho' and 
'Oraon' Tribes of the Chhota Nagpur area contended that the provisions 
of Sections 7 & 8 of the Act were discriminatory against women and, D 
--<( 
therefore, ultra vires the equality clause in the Constitution. 
-... 
The Court at an earlier st.age while hearing one of the writ petitions, 
gave time to the respondent-State of Bihar to consider the feasibility of 
carrying out an amendment in the offending sections so as to clearly· E 
provide that successipn was not confined in the male line. In pursuance 
thereof, a Committee was set up by the State which came to the conclusion 
that a custom prevailed among the Scheduled Tribes that a female heir be 
'-{. 
excluded from succession, and that if there was any change, and the 
property be allowed to go into the hands of female heirs there would be 
agitation and unrest. 
F 
Adjourning the hearing of the petitions, this Court, 
HELD: Scheduled Tribe people are as much citizens as others and· 
they are entitled to the benefit of guarantees of the Constitution. It may be G 
that the law can provide reasonable regulation in the matter of succession 
--( 
to property with a view to maintaining cohesiveness in regard to Scheduled 
Tribes and their properties. But exclusion from inheritance would not be 
appropriate. Since this aspect of the matter was not examined by the State, 
it should re-examine the feasibility of permitting inheritance and H 
simultaneously regulating such inheritance for the purpose of ensuring 
477 
478 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R. 
A that the property dQeS not go out of the family by way of. transfer or 
otherwise. (480 H; 481 AB] 
· 
Jitmohan Singh Munda v • . Ramratan Singh & Anr., 1958 Bl.JR 373, 
referred to. 
B 
In the circumstances~ hearing of the matter be adjourned for three 
months and the State of Bihar would immediately take into consideration 
the order and undertake the exercise.indicated and report to the Court by 
way of an affidavit, and along with that a copy of the report may be 
furnished by the Committee to be set up by the State of Bihar. [ 481 8-C] 
C 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 5723of1987 & 219 
of1986. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
Mrs Pinky Anand and D.N. Goburdhan for the Petitioners. 
D 
B.B. Singh, Pramod Swarup, J~P. Verghese, LJ. Vadakare and Ms. 
Kamini Jaiswal (N.P.) for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
E 
These two petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenge the 
provisions of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act which confines succession'to 
property to the male line by contending that the provision is discriminatory 
against women and, therefore, ultra vires the equality claiise in the Con-
-Y 
stitution. Petitioner no. 1 in the first writ petition is the editor of a 
magazine while petitioners nos. 2 and 3 are two ladies of the 'Ho' tribe, 
F adrllittedly one of the scheduled tribes residing in Singhbhum district of 
Bihar. The petitioners in the other writ petit.iQn belong to the 'Oraon' tribe 
of the Chhota Nagpur area. Challenge is essentially to ss. 7 and 8 of the 
Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act. of 1908. Sections 7'an_d 8 of the Act provide: 
G 
H 
"7.(1) Meaning of 'raiyat having khunt-khatti rights'. - "Raiyat 
having khunt katti rights" means a raiyat in occupation of, or 
having any subsisting title to, land reclaimed from jungle by the 
original founders of the village or their descendants in the male 
line, when such raiyat is a.11Jember of the family which founded . 
the village or a descendant in the male line of any memoer of 
such family: 
Provided that no raiyat shall be deemed to have khunt katti 
--( 
MAOHU KISHWAR v. SI'ATE 
479 
rights in any land unless he and all his predecessors-in-title A 
have held such land or obtained a title thereto by virtue of 
inheritance from the original founders of the village. 
(2) Nothing in this Act shall prejudicially affect the rights of 
any person who has lawfully acquired a title to a kbunt 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.