Case at a glance: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed an appeal by male agnates who claimed that a Munda custom limited widows and unmarried daughters to maintenance, entitling the men to the entire land-acquisition compensation. It held that a custom departing from general law must be pleaded and strictly proved, and in its absence applied justice, equity and good conscience read with Article 14.
Land of a common ancestor was acquired under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and compensation of several crores was apportioned by the Judicial Commissioner-cum-LARR Authority, Ranchi, with descendants through female lines receiving shares.
The appellants, claiming as nearest male agnates, said a Munda custom gave widows and unmarried daughters only maintenance. The private respondent said the family was sufficiently Hinduised and governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a customary rule excluding widows and daughters from inheritance be applied to land compensation without strict proof, and what law applies if neither custom nor Hinduisation is proved?
Custom Must Be Proved, Equality Fills the Gap
As reported, the Court held a custom must be ancient, uniform, certain and continuous, and strictly proved (Ram Charan v. Sukhram, SC 2025). The witnesses spoke generally, gave no instance of a woman being excluded, and the appellants had not objected to shares going to women of their own branch.
It also found Hinduisation not proved, applying Budhu Majhi, Labishwar Manjhi and Lakshmi Narayan Tudu, since evidence of continued Sarna faith and Munda burial practice outweighed Hindu names and festivals. Finding “a complete void” of applicable law, it applied justice, equity and good conscience read with Article 14.
What the Court Actually Held
- The appeal was dismissed and the Authority's allocation upheld.
- The custom excluding women was not proved.
- Hinduisation was not proved either.
- Justice, equity and good conscience read with Article 14 governed.
- Decree to be drawn up.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It strengthens women's claims to compensation in tribal families.
- It demands specific evidence for exclusionary customs.
- It applies the Supreme Court's Ram Charan approach.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Women Claimants' Counsel
- Challenge general testimony on custom and ask for specific instances.
- Rely on Ram Charan and Article 14 where no law applies.
For Counsel Asserting Custom
- Lead specific, consistent instances of the custom being followed.
Key Takeaways
- Exclusionary customs must be strictly proved.
- General statements are not enough.
- Equity and Article 14 fill the gap.
- Women's shares were upheld.
Frequently Asked Questions
That under Munda custom widows and unmarried daughters get only maintenance, not a share.
The evidence was general, with no instance of women being excluded.
Justice, equity and good conscience read with Article 14, as neither custom nor Hinduisation was proved.
Conclusion
The judgment ensures women are not excluded from compensation on unproved custom.
Practical takeaway: In tribal succession disputes, put the party asserting an exclusionary custom to strict proof.