Family Law

Ram Dev Ram v. Dhani Ram

AIR 2016 Chh 107

Facts

The parties belonged to the Uraon Scheduled Tribe.
The property originally belonged to Kanduwa.
After his death, his daughter Bhogi Bai claimed succession.
Ram Dev Ram, a male collateral, filed a suit for declaration and injunction.
He relied on an alleged Uraon custom under which:
daughters ordinarily did not inherit their father’s property;
an exception existed for a Ghar Jinha daughter.
A Ghar Jinha arrangement meant that:
the daughter remained in her parental home after marriage;
her husband came to live there;
she could then succeed to her father’s property.
Ram Dev argued that Bhogi Bai was married and lived separately with her husband, so she did not fall within the exception.
He also claimed adverse possession.
The Trial Court accepted both the custom and his claim.
The First Appellate Court reversed, holding that the custom was not sufficiently proved and that adverse possession could not support a declaration of title.

Section 2(2) HSA excludes Scheduled Tribe members from the Act unless the Central Government directs otherwise.
Their succession may consequently be governed by proved customary law.
A custom must generally be established through:
clear pleadings;
community evidence;
previous judicial recognition;
consistent practice.
Tribal customs vary from tribe to tribe and region to region.
No universal rule concerning tribal succession can be presumed.
A person relying on an exception to a custom must prove the facts necessary to bring themselves within it.
Adverse possession ordinarily operates as a defence and cannot independently become the basis of a declaratory title suit.

The High Court examined oral evidence from members of the Uraon community.
Witnesses stated that:
succession was generally patrilineal;
a daughter could inherit where she remained with her father under the Ghar Jinha arrangement.
Earlier decisions concerning Uraon succession in nearby regions supported the existence of this custom.
The Court therefore found that the plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence of the local rule.
Bhogi Bai did not establish that:
her husband had settled in her father’s house;
she remained part of the parental household under Ghar Jinha;
the customary exception applied to her.
She had instead resided separately with her husband.
Therefore, under the custom accepted by the Court, she was not entitled to succeed.
The High Court did not rest its family-law conclusion on adverse possession.
The decisive basis was the proved customary succession rule.
This case therefore differs from Bahadur v. Bratiya:
in Bahadur, the exclusionary custom was not consistently proved and was rejected;
here, the Court found sufficient evidence of a specific Uraon custom and applied it.

The second appeal was allowed.
The Trial Court’s decree in favour of the male claimant was restored.
The Uraon custom excluding an ordinary married daughter but recognising a Ghar Jinha daughter was held proved.
Bhogi Bai did not satisfy the Ghar Jinha exception.
Use this case for: proof and application of a specific tribal succession custom where the Hindu Succession Act does not directly apply.