TIRITH KUMAR & ORS. versus DADURAM & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 665 · Decided: 19-12-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.T. RAVIKUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 665 : 2024 INSC 1005
Tirith Kumar & Ors.
v.
Daduram & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 13516 of 2024)
19 December 2024
[C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 could be applied to the 
parties to the instant lis.
Headnotes†
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.2(2) – Application of the Act – 
Constitution of India – Articles 366(25), 341, 342 – Central 
Provinces Laws Act, 1875 – ss.5, 6 – High Court held that the 
parties belonged to Sawara tribe, a notified scheduled tribe 
and thus, the HSA, 1956 does not apply to them – Granted a 
portion as property to M’s daughters and their descendants 
(respondents) on the grounds of justice, equity and good 
conscience – Correctness: 
Held: HSA, 1956 clearly states that scheduled castes and tribes 
shall be outside its purview of application – Thus, HSA, 1956 does 
not apply to scheduled tribes – Therefore, the Courts below erred 
on this count, and the High Court took the correct view – Parties 
did not produce any notification demonstrating that the Sawara tribe 
stands de-notified – Further, ‘M’ passed away in 1951, that is, prior 
to the enactment of HSA, 1956 – No error in the judgment of the 
High Court applying the provisions of the Central Provinces Laws 
Act, 1875 and more particularly s.6 thereof which postulates the 
application of the principle of justice, equity and good conscience, 
to account for possibilities not covered by s.5 of the Act – Appeal 
has no merit, dismissed. [Paras 4-7, 9]
Tribals – Female Tribals – Right of survivorship to – 
Recommendation to Central Government, reiterated:
Held: Recommendation/suggestion made to the Central 
Government in the case of in Kamla Neti v. LAO to look into 
pathways to secure the right of survivorship to female tribals, 
reiterated – Hindu Succession Act, 1956. [Para 11]
* Author
666
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Kamla Neti v. LAO [2022] 18 SCR 441 : (2023) 3 SCC 528 – held 
not applicable.
Madhu Kishwar & Ors. v. State of Bihar [1996] Supp. 1 SCR 
442 : (1996) 5 SCC 125; M.V. Elisabeth and Others v. Harwan 
Investments and Trading Pvt. Ltd. Hanoekar House, Swatontapeth, 
Vasco-De-Gama, Goa [1992]  1 SCR 1003 : (1993) Supp. 2 SCC 
433; M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore [1963] Supp. 1 SCR 439 : 1962 
SCC OnLine SC 147; State of Maharashtra v. Milind [2000] Supp. 
5 SCR 65 : (2001) 1 SCC 4; State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh 
[2024] 8 SCR 1321 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1860; Ahmedabad 
Women Action Group (AWAG) v. Union of India [1997] 2 SCR 
389 : (1997) 3 SCC 573; Bhuri v. Maroti, (2015) SCC OnLine Bom 
3173; Bhagwati v. Cheduram, 2019 SCC OnLine Chh 209; Bini 
B. (Dr.) v. Jayan P.R., 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 39489; M. Siddiq 
(Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5 J.) v. Suresh Das [2019] 18 SCR 1 : 
(2020) 1 SCC 1; Saraswathi Ammal v. Jagadambal [1953] 1 SCR 
939 : (1953) 1 SCC 362 – referred to.
List of Acts
Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875.
List of Keywords
Application of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Scheduled tribe; 
Sawara tribe, Notified scheduled tribe; Customs; Tribal community; 
Scheduled castes; Hindu law; Inheritance; Hindu Religion; 
Sufficiently hinduised; De-notified; Common ancestor; Succession 
of property; Principles of justice, equity and good conscience; 
Female tribals; Right of survivorship.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13516 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2019 of the High Court 
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in SA No. 270 of 2003
Appearances for Parties
Satish Pandey, Mahesh Kumar Tiwari, Ms. Nishi Prabha Singh, 
Ms. Jay Jaimini Pandey, Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Ms. Lalita Gupta, 
Abhishek Kumar Singh, Ms. Vijay Lakshmi, Braj Kishore Mishra, 
Advs. for the Appellants.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
667
Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors.
Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Parvinder, Manish Das, Mukul Biswas, 
Vidya Sagar, Arun Kumar Arunachal, Arjun D Singh, Ms. Ankita 
Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjay Karol, J.
THE CHALLENGE
1.	
This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment and order 
passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in Second 
Appeal No. 270 of 2003, dated 6th February 2019 and it raises the 
question as to whether the Hindu Succession Act, 19561 could be 
applied to the parties to the instant lis? The Courts below i.e. the 
First Appellate Court2 in Civil Appeal No.09A/2001 vide judgment 
dated 27t

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