The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment on Oraon tribal customary inheritance law, holding that an uncle-in-law cannot appoint a ghardamad (resident son-in-law) unless a specific custom clearly permits it. The Court stressed that parties must prove every claimed custom with reliable evidence instead of relying on assumptions. This ruling strengthens Oraon tribal customary inheritance law by reaffirming that courts cannot presume the existence of customs affecting inheritance rights.
Background of the Property Dispute
The dispute arose from ancestral property belonging to Sukhu Oraon, who had three sons—Dhungru, Ledura, and Bhoula.
The original plaintiff, Sukhu Oraon, the grandson of Dhungru, claimed exclusive ownership of the ancestral property. However, Budhain, the daughter of Bhoula, and her husband Punai opposed the claim.
The defendants argued that Ledura, who died without children, had inducted Punai into his household as a ghardamad. They also relied on a family arrangement executed on February 27, 1975, to support their claim.
Both sides agreed that the Oraon community traditionally excludes daughters from inheriting ancestral property.
Proceedings Before the Lower Courts
The Munsif Court at Gumla dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.
Later, the 1st Additional District Judge, Gumla, upheld that decision. The Jharkhand High Court also dismissed the second appeal.
All three courts accepted that Punai had become Ledura’s ghardamad. However, the High Court framed an important legal question regarding whether an uncle-in-law had the customary authority to appoint a ghardamad. Despite framing the issue, it did not answer the question. The dispute ultimately reached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Examines the Custom
The Supreme Court examined the scope of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution. Although it usually avoids interfering with concurrent findings of fact, the Bench found that the present case involved an important question of customary law.
The Court referred to Halsbury’s Laws of England and reiterated that a valid custom must be:
- Immemorial
- Reasonable
- Certain
- Continuous
The Bench further held that the party asserting a custom must prove it with convincing evidence. Courts cannot recognise customs based on assumptions or isolated instances.
Evidence Failed to Support the Defendants’ Claim
The Supreme Court carefully analysed the oral evidence presented before the trial court.
The evidence established two facts. First, the family had never partitioned the ancestral property. Second, daughters could not inherit ancestral property under the Oraon customary framework.
However, the defendants failed to prove a separate custom allowing an uncle-in-law to induct his niece’s husband as a ghardamad. Their witnesses also gave inconsistent statements.
The Court noted that Section 48 of the Evidence Act, 1872, requires convincing community evidence to establish a binding custom. A single witness cannot prove such a custom.
Lower Courts Misread S.C. Roy’s Writings
The Supreme Court also found that the lower courts misunderstood the writings of renowned anthropologist Sarat Chandra Roy.
Roy’s work clearly states that only the last male owner or his widow may induct a ghardamad who can later inherit property.
The evidence showed that Ledura, the uncle-in-law, inducted Punai. However, neither Budhain’s father nor his widow had inducted him.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the defendants failed to establish any recognised custom permitting an uncle-in-law to appoint a ghardamad.
High Court Failed to Decide the Legal Question
The Supreme Court criticised the Jharkhand High Court for leaving the substantial question of law unanswered.
The Bench observed that once a High Court admits a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it must decide every substantial question of law on its merits.
Instead of deciding the issue, the High Court simply observed that no evidence prohibited such an appointment. The Supreme Court held that this approach was legally incorrect because the burden always remained on the defendants to prove the custom.
Supreme Court’s Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of all three lower courts.
The Bench ruled that the defendants failed to establish any customary rule allowing an uncle-in-law to induct a ghardamad. Consequently, Punai acquired no inheritance rights through Ledura.
The Court also held that the 1975 deed had no legal effect on the title dispute because Ledura possessed only an undivided interest in the ancestral property.
Finally, the Court decreed the suit in favour of the legal heirs of the original plaintiff and directed each party to bear its own legal costs.
Conclusion
The judgment reinforces an important principle of customary law. Courts will recognise only those customs that parties prove through clear, consistent, and reliable evidence. By rejecting presumptive claims, the Supreme Court has clarified the scope of inheritance under the Oraon community and strengthened legal certainty in disputes involving tribal customary law.
