Jharkhand High Court
Ismail Hansda And Others vs Mathias Murmu And Others on 6 May, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. A. No. 309 of 2016
Ismail Hansda and Others ... ... Appellants
Versus
Mathias Murmu and Others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate
: Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Advocate
---
th
22/6 May 2025
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that a list of further
substantial questions of law which according to the appellants fall for
consideration before this Court.
3. As per his submissions, the defendants in the written statement had
taken a specific stand in paragraph 9 that as per paragraph 46 of the
Gantzer's Settlement Report, the law not allowing females to inheritance
under Santhal Tribal Law was changing owing to the force of public
opinion and even during the time of Gantzer's Survey and Settlement, the
daughters not married in gharjamai form also inherited paternal properties.
He has submitted that the learned 1st appellate court in paragraph 12 has
recorded that as per Gantzer's report there are some gradual changes in such
santhal custom, but has confined his discussion only to the extent as to how
a santhal daughter can be put in gharzamai marriage and how she becomes
entitle to inherit the property of her santhal father.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 4 SCC
97 (Laxmibai (dead) through LRs. Vs. Bhagwantbuwa (dead) through
LRs.), the law regarding customs has been settled by paragraph 12 to 14.
He submits that the custom is required to be proved and such custom must
be ancient, uniform, certain, continuous and compulsory. He submits that
the basic ingredients of a custom is not satisfied in the present case and the
learned 1st appellate court has completely given a go by to this aspect of the
matter and therefore he has submitted that substantial question of law No.
1 also falls for consideration.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and
has submitted that the learned 1st appellate court has taken into
consideration every aspect of the matter including the rights of female as
recorded in Gantzer's Survey and Settlement and therefore considering the
scope of second appeal, no substantial question of law is required to be
framed in the present case.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, considering the
aforesaid facts and circumstances this court finds that the learned 1st
appellate court in paragraph 12 has confined the discussions only to the
extent as to how a santhal daughter can be put in gharzamai marriage and
how she became entitle to inherit the property of her santhal father in spite
of recording that as per Mr. Gantzer's report there has been gradual changes
in santhal custom.
7. This Court is of the view that the following substantial question of
law as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants falls for
consideration: -
"Whether alleged custom amongst santhals debarring females
from their right of inheritance over the land left by the ancestors
satisfies the test of binding custom as has been laid down in the
case of Laxmibai (dead) through LRs. Vs. Bhagwantbuwa (dead)
through LRs. Reported in (2013) 4 SCC 97."
8. At the request of the learned counsel for the respondents, the matter
is adjourned and is directed to be posted on 17.06.2025 in the
supplementary cause list.
9. The learned counsel for the parties are directed to file their short
synopsis of proposed arguments along with the judgments which they seek
to rely upon latest by 13.06.2025.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
