Summary and Analysis of Ram Charan & Ors. vs. Sukhram & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9537 of 2025)

1. Heading of the Judgment

Ram Charan & Ors. vs. Sukhram & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 9537 of 2025 | Decided on July 17, 2025)
Bench: Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.
Status: Reportable

2. Relevant Laws and Legal Provisions

The judgment interprets and applies:

• Constitution of India:
  Article 14: Right to equality (prohibits gender discrimination).
  Article 15(1): Prohibits discrimination based on sex.

• Statutory Laws:
  Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Section 2(2)): Excludes Scheduled Tribes from its application.
  Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 (Section 6): Mandates courts to decide cases based on "justice, equity, and good conscience" where no specific law exists.

• Legal Doctrines:
  Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience: Applied when no custom or law governs the dispute.

3. Basic Case Details

AspectDetailsPartiesAppellants: Legal heirs of Dhaiya (tribal woman). Respondents: Other heirs of Bhajju (maternal grandfather).Property DisputeAncestral property of Bhajju Gond (Scheduled Tribe). Dhaiya was one of six children (5 sons, 1 daughter).Lower CourtsTrial Court (2008) & First Appellate Court (2009): Dismissed suit, denying daughters inheritance rights. High Court (2022): Upheld dismissal.Core IssueWhether a tribal woman/heirs are entitled to an equal share in ancestral property absent a custom.Supreme CourtAllowed appeal: Directed equal share for Dhaiya’s heirs.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

I. Exclusion of Hindu Law

• Issue: Appellants claimed inheritance under Hindu law, but lower courts rejected this.

• Court’s Ruling:
  Section 2(2), Hindu Succession Act, 1956, explicitly excludes Scheduled Tribes.
  Gond community (tribal) is not governed by Hindu law.

II. Absence of Custom

• Issue: No evidence proved a custom allowing/excluding female inheritance.

• Court’s Criticism:
  Lower courts wrongly presumed daughters were excluded by default (patriarchal bias).
  Burden of proof: If respondents claimed exclusion, they should have proven such a custom.
  No custom proven by either side → Legal vacuum existed.

III. Application of "Justice, Equity & Good Conscience"

• Legal Basis: Section 6, Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 (saved post-repeal by Section 4 of Repeal Act, 2018).

• Court’s Reasoning:
  Where no law/custom applies, courts must apply equitable principles.
  Denying inheritance solely based on gender violates equality (Articles 14 & 15).
  Precedents Cited:
  Mst. Sarwango v. Mst. Urchamahin (2013): Directed inheritance to daughters based on equity.
  Tirith Kumar v. Daduram (2024): Upheld female inheritance rights under similar circumstances.

IV. Constitutional Mandate of Gender Equality

• Article 14 Analysis:
  Denying property to daughters while granting it to sons is arbitrary and discriminatory.
  No reasonable nexus for gender-based exclusion.

• Landmark Precedents:
  Maneka Gandhi v. UoI (1978): Equality is a "dynamic concept" antithetic to arbitrariness.
  Shayara Bano v. UoI (2017): Gender equality is intrinsic to Article 14.

• Progressive Stance:
  Custom/law cannot perpetuate gender discrimination.
  Silence of custom must favor inclusion, not exclusion.

V. Final Directions

1. Appellants (Dhaiya’s heirs) entitled to equal share in Bhajju’s property.

2. Lower courts’ judgments set aside.

3. Partition suit decreed in favor of appellants.

Key Takeaways

1. Tribal Communities: Not governed by Hindu law; customs must be proven, not presumed.

2. Gender Equality: Constitutional principles override discriminatory practices.

3. Equity as Law: "Justice, equity, and good conscience" fill gaps where laws/customs are silent.

4. Legal Reform: Judgment aligns with progressive amendments (e.g., Hindu Succession Act, 2005) promoting women’s rights.