Family Law

Bahadur v. Bratiya

2015 SCC OnLine HP 1555

Facts

The disputed property belonged to Rasalu, who had:
two sons;
four daughters.
Bahadur, one of the male claimants, argued that Rasalu belonged to the Gaddi Scheduled Tribe.
He claimed that under Gaddi custom:
daughters did not inherit their father’s property;
property devolved only upon male heirs.
Revenue mutations had recognised shares in favour of Rasalu’s daughters.
Bahadur filed a suit seeking to invalidate those mutations.
The Trial Court accepted that:
the parties were Gaddis;
the Hindu Succession Act did not apply because of Section 2(2);
the exclusionary custom governed succession.
The District Judge reversed this decision.
Evidence before the courts was inconsistent:
some witnesses claimed that daughters were excluded;
others stated that daughters among Gaddi Rajputs inherited equally;
documentary records did not consistently establish the alleged custom.

Whether a custom excluding Gaddi daughters from inheritance was legally established.
Whether such a discriminatory custom should prevail over constitutional equality and the principles of the Hindu Succession Act.

A party relying on a custom contrary to ordinary succession law must prove that it is:
ancient;
certain;
continuous;
uniformly observed;
reasonable.
A customary record is relevant but not conclusive.
Customs adversely affecting women must be scrutinised particularly carefully because women may not have participated when such records were prepared.
Laws concerning women’s property rights should be interpreted consistently with:
equality;
dignity;
social justice.
Section 2(2) HSA excludes Scheduled Tribes from the Act unless notified, but the Court treated constitutional principles as controlling discriminatory customs.

The evidence did not prove a uniform custom excluding daughters.
Witnesses from within the community gave contradictory accounts.
Some documentary instances showed sons and daughters inheriting together.
Bahadur therefore failed the strict evidentiary test required for establishing a special custom.
The Court then considered the broader constitutional problem.
Excluding daughters merely because they were female would perpetuate:
economic dependence;
social inequality;
exploitation.
The purpose of modern succession law is to move away from gender-based disability.
The Court held that customs must evolve with society and cannot remain immune from principles of justice and equality.
It therefore applied the equality-oriented principles of the Hindu Succession Act to daughters in tribal areas of Himachal Pradesh.
The ruling was confined to inheritance and did not remove other lawful tribal privileges or protections.
The daughters’ mutations were therefore not invalid merely because male relatives relied upon an alleged exclusionary custom.

Bahadur’s appeal was dismissed.
The District Judge’s decision recognising the daughters’ inheritance was upheld.
The Court declared that daughters in tribal areas of Himachal Pradesh should inherit according to the Hindu Succession Act rather than discriminatory customs.
Use this case for: proof of tribal custom and rejection of customs excluding daughters from inheritance.