Recently, the Supreme Court held that where personal law or customary practice is silent on succession, principles of justice, equity, and good conscience must prevail, and female heirs cannot be denied property rights. The matter involved a dispute over inheritance where a woman’s legal heirs were denied succession due to absence of a proven custom in their favour. The Court observed that denying women property rights due to lack of a specific custom amounts to discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Brief Facts:
The dispute arose after a woman passed away, and her legal heirs claimed a share in the ancestral property. However, the claim was opposed on the ground that under prevailing customs, succession was limited to male heirs, and there was no positive proof that women had ever succeeded to such property in the community. The lower courts upheld this view and denied the woman’s heirs any right in the estate.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellants, representing the deceased woman’s heirs, argued that in the absence of a binding custom excluding women from inheritance, the refusal to grant them a share amounted to gender-based discrimination. They urged that the silence or ambiguity of customary law should not be used to perpetuate inequality, especially when such exclusion lacks any legal basis.
Observations of the Court:
The Apex Court emphatically held that, “A court cannot abdicate its responsibility to decide a dispute over legal rights merely because the facts of a case do not readily submit themselves to the application of the letter of the existing law.”
Furthar, the Court elaborated that the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience are not abstract ideals but practical tools to supplement statutory gaps and ensure just outcomes. These principles may be rightly invoked when the existing law is inadequate, or where customs are ambiguous or incapable of ascertainment. It was further held 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.”
Reinforcing the constitutional mandate, the Court found that denying property rights to female heirs without any legal or rational justification violates Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution. The Court cited precedents including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, and Shayara Bano v. Union of India, to stress that equality and non-arbitrariness are foundational to constitutional governance.
The Court also invoked the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, noting its object was to eliminate gender-based discrimination in property rights, and emphasized that similar spirit must animate judicial interpretation even in cases governed by custom.
The decision of the Court:
Setting aside the orders of the courts below, the Top Court ruled in favour of the woman’s legal heirs. It declared them entitled to an equal share in the property, holding that any denial in such circumstances amounts to a breach of constitutional equality. The civil appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case Title: Ram Charan & Ors. vs. Sukhram & Ors.
Case No.: SLP(C)No.5559 of 2023
Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Picture Source :
