Tribal Daughters Inherit Too: Supreme Court Applies Justice, Equity and Good Conscience Where No Excluding Custom Is Proved

The heirs of a tribal woman sought a share in her father's land; the courts below refused, reasoning that tribal succession follows custom and custom gives daughters nothing — though no such custom was ever proved on the record. The dispute travelled to the Supreme Court as the recurring question of a statutory gap: the Hindu Succession Act does not apply to Scheduled Tribes, and codified tribal succession law does not exist.

The Key Question Before the Court

When neither statute nor proved custom governs, can a tribal daughter be presumed disinherited — or must equality fill the gap?

Custom Is Proof, Not Presumption

Justice Karol's judgment inverts the default the lower courts had applied: a custom excluding women from inheritance is a fact to be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by those who assert it — it cannot be presumed from the community's tribal identity. Where the record discloses no such custom, there is no legal basis to turn a daughter away; courts deciding such disputes must act on justice, equity and good conscience, the residual principle that governs where codified law does not reach.

Equality Reads the Gap

Applying that principle, the Court held that denying the woman's heirs a share — while male heirs took — would entrench a gendered exclusion the Constitution forbids: Article 14 does not tolerate inheritance rules that distinguish only by sex, least of all rules that exist nowhere but in assumption. The appeal was decided in favour of the woman's line, securing her share in the father's property.

What the Court Actually Held

• A custom excluding tribal women from inheritance must be pleaded and proved; it cannot be presumed.
• Absent statute and proved custom, succession disputes are decided on justice, equity and good conscience.
• On those principles, a tribal daughter (and her heirs) cannot be denied a share in her father's property.
• Gender-based exclusion from inheritance, without an established custom, violates Article 14.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It shifts the burden in every tribal succession case: exclusion now needs proof, inclusion does not.
• It extends the Court's gender-equality succession jurisprudence into the space Section 2(2) HSA leaves uncovered.
• It arms tribal women across States where land records and partition suits routinely bypass daughters.
• It renews the long-pending legislative question of codifying tribal succession — with a constitutional default now in place.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Claimant Daughters and Their Heirs

• Put the opposing side to strict proof of any excluding custom; absent it, claim on justice, equity and good conscience with Article 14 as the backdrop.

For Defendants Asserting Custom

• Plead the custom with specificity and prove it through cogent evidence of long, uniform practice — generalities about tribal usage will no longer carry a partition suit.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Section 2(2) excludes Scheduled Tribes from the Act unless the Central Government notifies otherwise — leaving succession to custom, and now, where custom is unproved, to justice, equity and good conscience.

Only by pleading and strictly proving it; this judgment removes the presumption that tribal custom disinherits women.

Where courts fill a legal gap, they cannot adopt a rule that discriminates by sex; equality shapes the default the court applies.

Conclusion