Court Rejects Claim of Customary Tribal Law Excluding Daughters and Widows from Inheritance, Allocates Half Share of Compensation to Granddaughter
In a landmark judgment delivered on October 5, 2026, the Jharkhand High Court, presided by Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary, dismissed the appeal filed by male descendants of the Munda Scheduled Tribe community, thereby affirming the inheritance rights of female descendants in ancestral property compensation arising from land acquisition.
The case arose from a dispute over compensation awarded under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act), for lands acquired belonging to the descendants of late Soma Munda. The appellants, descendants of one son of Soma Munda, contested the entitlement of Daho Devi, granddaughter of another son, Induwa Munda, and Mohan Munda, son of a granddaughter, to a share in the compensation. The appellants relied on an asserted Munda customary law that excludes daughters and widows from inheritance, entitling them only to maintenance, with property devolving exclusively to male agnates.
The respondents, on the other hand, claimed they had been sufficiently "Hinduised" to attract the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which grants daughters equal inheritance rights. They submitted evidence of practicing Hindu festivals and customs.
The trial court had ruled in favor of the respondents, allocating half of the compensation to Daho Devi and a share to Mohan Munda. The appellants challenged this decision before the High Court.
Key Findings of the High Court:
1. Customary Law Burden of Proof:
The Court reiterated settled legal principles that any party asserting a custom contrary to general law must specifically plead and strictly prove that such custom is ancient, uniform, certain, continuous, compulsory, and reasonable. Mere oral assertions without satisfactory evidence are insufficient. The appellants failed to discharge this burden, as they did not provide clear, unambiguous proof of a binding custom excluding females from inheritance.
2. Hinduisation Evidence Insufficient:
Although the respondents demonstrated partial adoption of Hindu customs and names, the Court found that the parties continued to follow their original Sarna religion, including burial rites, which are not Hindu practices. Therefore, the respondents failed to establish that they were sufficiently Hinduised to attract the Hindu Succession Act.
3. Void in Governing Law and Application of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience:
With neither the exclusionary custom nor the Hindu Succession Act applicable, the Court found a legal vacuum regarding inheritance rights. Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Ram Charan v. Sukhram (2025), the Court held that principles of justice, equity, and good conscience must fill this void. Consequently, daughters and female descendants cannot be denied inheritance solely on the basis of tribal lineage.
4. Share Allocation Affirmed:
The Court upheld the trial court's decision to allocate half the compensation share to Daho Devi, granddaughter of Induwa Munda. As for Mohan Munda, who died during the proceedings without heirs, his share was to be distributed among his legal successors as per law. The appeal was dismissed.
The Court emphasized that the appellants' claim that daughters and widows have no inheritance rights under Munda customary law was unproven. Neither party had sufficiently established the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, equity principles prevailed to protect the rights of female descendants.
This judgment reinforces the growing judicial trend towards gender equality in inheritance rights within tribal communities, especially where customary laws are unproven or incompatible with constitutional guarantees under Article 14 (Right to Equality).
Background and Context:
The lands acquired were recorded in the names of three sons of Soma Munda: Sauna Munda, Bhadwa Munda (died issueless), and Induwa Munda. The dispute centered on whether female descendants, specifically Daho Devi and Mohan Munda (son of a daughter), had any right to the land acquisition compensation. The appellants asserted the strict male-line inheritance custom of the Munda tribe, excluding females from succession except for maintenance rights. The respondents claimed Hinduization and thus application of Hindu Succession Act rights.
Evidence and Pleadings:
The appellants' witnesses acknowledged the tribal affiliation and adherence to Sarna religion and customs, including burial rites. However, they did not produce convincing evidence to prove the custom excluding females from inheritance satisfied the legal threshold for binding custom. The respondents provided evidence of Hindu festival observances and names but also admitted to following Sarna religion practices.
Legal Analysis:
The High Court conducted an exhaustive review of precedents including:
- Budhu Majhi v. Dukhan Majhi (Patna HC) - on proof of Hinduization in tribal succession
- Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (Supreme Court) - on variability of tribal customs and need for case-by-case examination
- Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi (Supreme Court) - on applicability of Hindu Succession Act after Hinduization
- Ram Charan v. Sukhram (Supreme Court, 2025) - on applying justice, equity, and good conscience where no law governs inheritance rights
The Court underscored the heavy burden on the appellants to prove a customary law that excludes women from inheritance rights, which they failed to meet. It also observed that partial Hindu practices do not necessarily translate to being "sufficiently Hinduised." The continued observance of Sarna religion and burial rites indicated the parties had not abandoned their tribal customs to an extent warranting application of Hindu Succession Act.
With no binding customary law or sufficient Hinduization, the Court ruled that the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience under Article 14 must be applied, ensuring daughters and female descendants receive their rightful share.
Conclusion:
The Jharkhand High Court's decision stands as a significant affirmation of gender equality in inheritance rights within tribal communities, particularly in land acquisition compensation matters. It clarifies the rigorous standards required to prove exclusionary tribal customs and the limits of Hindu Succession Act applicability based on Hinduization. The judgment promotes fair and equitable distribution of ancestral property compensation, reflecting constitutional values and evolving jurisprudence.
Bottom Line:
Land acquisition compensation - Scheduled Tribe Munda parties - Appellants failed to prove binding tribal custom excluding daughters and widows from inheritance; respondent also failed to prove that parties were sufficiently Hinduised so as to attract Hindu Succession Act - In such void, principles of justice, equity and good conscience as explained in Ram Charan v. Sukhram applied - Grand-daughter Daho Devi held entitled to half share in compensation.
Statutory provision(s):
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 64; Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 2(2); Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Budhan Devi v. Daho Devi, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2993496
