LexRAM CHARAN & ORS. versus SUKHRAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 272 : 2025 INSC 865 Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9537 of 2025) 17 July 2025 [Sanjay Karol* and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether a tribal woman or her legal heirs would be entitled to an equal share in her ancestral property or not. Headnotes† Succession – Right of inheritance of tribal woman to ancestral property – Legal heirs of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, sought declaration of title and partition of a property, belonging to their maternal grandfather – Suit dismissed by the courts below holding that the legal heirs failed to establish their right over such property by way of custom, showing that female heir entitled thereto – Correctness: Held: Keeping with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, read along with the overarching effect of Art.14, the legal heirs of the deceased mother belonging to a Scheduled Tribe entitled to their equal share in the property – Denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out – No such custom of female succession could be established by the legal heirs, but nonetheless a custom to the contrary also could not be shown in the slightest, much less proved – Denying legal heirs deceased mother her share in her father’s property, when the custom is silent, would violate her right to equality vis-à-vis her brothers or those of her legal heirs vis-à-vis their cousin – Also, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which excludes the Scheduled Tribes from its application, not applicable – Neither any particular law of a community nor custom could be brought into application by either side – Customs too, like the law, cannot remain stuck in time and others cannot be allowed to take refuge in customs to deprive others of their right – Furthermore, the principle of * Author [2025] 8 S.C.R. 273 Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors. justice, equity, and good conscience find statutory recognition in the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, the High Court held that the same has been repealed and, thus, cannot be applied, is a mistaken position – Effect of s. 4 of the Repealed Act, is clear that no right having been accrued prior to the repeal of the Act shall be affected thereby – Parties to the instant lis are neither governed by Hindu nor Muslim laws and, thus, would be covered by s.6 of the 1875 Act – Rights of the mother had crystallized upon the death of her father, 30 years before the filing of the plaint, would not be affected by the fact that the Act was no longer in the statute book – Furthermore, there appears to be no rational nexus or reasonable classification for only males to be granted succession over the property of their forebears and not women, more so in the case where no prohibition to such effect can be shown to be prevalent as per law – Thus, the impugned judgment set aside – Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 – ss.4, 6 – Constitution of India – Art.14. [Paras 12, 13, 15-20, 27-29] Doctrines/Principles – Principles of ‘justice, equity and good conscience – Meaning of: Held: Principle of ‘justice, equity and good conscience can be applied only when there is a void or, in other words, in the absence of any law governing that aspect – Since no custom to the effect that women were entitled to the property, the application thereof would be consistent with this position – When applying the principle of justice, equity and good conscience, the Courts have to be mindful. [Paras 18, 19] Case Law Cited Salekh Chand v. Satya Gupta and Ors. [2008] 3 SCR 833 : (2008) 13 SCC 119; Ratanlal v. Sundarabai Govardhandas Samsuka [2017] 11 SCR 28 : (2018) 11 SCC 119; Aliyathammuda Beethathebiyyappura Pookoya v. Pattakal Cheriyakoya [2019] 10 SCR 961 : (2019) 16 SCC 1; Daduram and Others v. Bhuri Bai & Ors., SA No.270 of 2023; Tirith Kumar v. Daduram [2024] 12 SCR 665 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3810; Niemla Textile Finishing Mills Ltd. v. 2nd Punjab Tribunal [1957] 1 SCR 335 : 1957 SCC OnLine SC 64; Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Corpn. of Calcutta [1967] SCR 170 : 1966 SCC OnLine SC 42; M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das [2019] 18 SCR 1 : (2020) 1 SCC 1; 274 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Western U.P. Electric Power and Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. [1968] 3 SCR 312 : (1969) 1 SCC 817; Air India v. Nergesh Meerza [1982] 1 SCR 438 : (1981) 4 SCC 335
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.