Denying ST Woman Share In Father's Property Amounts To Gender Discrimination: SC

Last Updated:July 18, 2025, 19:41 IST

The appellants sought partition of a property belonging to their maternal grandfather

The court pointed out Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, unequivocally excludes from its application, Scheduled Tribes. (PTI)

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that denying a woman from Scheduled Tribe community an equal share in her father’s property with her brothers, if not otherwise prohibited under customs, would violate her right to equality and amount to gender discrimination.

“We are of the view that, unless otherwise prescribed in law, denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out," a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi said.

Applying the principle of justice, equity, and good conscience here, the court allowed a civil appeal filed by Ram Charan and others, the legal heirs of one Dhaiya, a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe.

The appellants sought partition of a property belonging to their maternal grandfather, Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond. Their mother was one of the six children – five sons and one daughter. They stated that their mother is entitled to an equal share in the scheduled property.

In the present case, the court said, a woman or her successors, if the views of the lower courts are upheld, would be denied a right to property on the basis of the absence of a positive assertion to such inheritance in custom.

“However, 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," the bench said.

The court also found this to be a question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

“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," the bench said.

The court also pointed out Article 15(1) of the Constitution states that the State shall not discriminate against any person on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. This, along with Articles 38 and 46, points to the collective ethos of the Constitution in ensuring that there is no discrimination against women, it noted.

The bench also said this discussion on equality under Article 14, which, needless to state, included the aspect of gender equality within its fold, will be incomplete without reference to the first and most commendable step taken under the Hindu Law by way of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which made daughters the coparceners in joint family property.

“Granted that no such custom of female succession could be established by the appellant-plaintiffs, but nonetheless it is also equally true that a custom to the contrary also could not be shown in the slightest, much less proved. That being the case, denying Dhaiya 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," the bench said.

The court held it was of the firm view that in keeping with the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, read along with the overarching effect of Article 14 of the Constitution, the appellant-plaintiffs, being Dhaiya’s legal heirs, are entitled to their equal share in the property.

In the case, the court examined whether a tribal woman (or her legal heirs) would be entitled to an equal share in her ancestral property or not.

“One would think that in this day and age, where great strides have been made in realising the constitutional goal of equality, this court would not need to intervene for equality between the successors of a common ancestor and the same should be a given, irrespective of their biological differences, but it is not so," the bench said.

In the case, the appellant-plaintiffs approached the Trial Court seeking a declaration of title and partition of the suit property.

By its judgment in February 2008, the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court.

The First Appellate Court, by its judgment on April 21, 2009, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court that the mother of the appellant-plaintiffs had no right in the property of her father. It held so for the reason that no evidence had been led to show that children of a female heir are also entitled to property.

The Chhattisgarh High Court also held 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 is also entitled thereto.

The appellant-plaintiffs contended that they had adopted Hindu traditions, but the High Court held that since there was no evidence to that effect brought on record, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court had rightly rejected this contention.

Examining the matter, the bench said that the question of the parties having adopted Hindu customs and way of life is no longer in play.

The court pointed out Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, unequivocally excludes from its application, Scheduled Tribes.

“For the application of a custom to be shown, it has to be proved, but it was not in the present case. In fact, the Courts below proceeded, in our view, with an assumption in mind and that assumption was misplaced," the bench said.

In its judgment, the court also noted, in the discussion of customs, it was assumed that the daughters would not be entitled to any inheritance and expected the appellant-plantiffs to prove otherwise.

“An alternate scenario was also possible where not exclusion, but inclusion could have been presumed and the defendants then could have been asked to show that women were not entitled to inherit property. This patriarchal predisposition appears to be an inference from Hindu law, which has no place in the present case," the bench said.

Since neither any particular law of a community nor custom could be brought into application by either side, the court proceeded to examine the argument advanced before the High Court, that is, the principle of justice, equity, and good conscience, which found recognition in the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875.

The court held since the parties to the instant lis are neither governed by Hindu nor Muslim laws and, therefore, would be covered by Section 6 of the 1875 Act.

“So, the right having been accrued in favour of the appellant-plaintiffs’ mother upon the death of her father, which was approximately 30 years before the filing of the plaint, became crystallised and would not be affected by the fact that the Act was no longer in the statute book," the bench said.

The court said this 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.

Sanya Talwar

Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...Read More

Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...

Read More

Location :

First Published:

News india Denying ST Woman Share In Father's Property Amounts To Gender Discrimination: SC