Tribal Women’s Right To Family Property Under Hindu Succession Act: Madras HC Makes Observations

The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam recently observed that the Tribal Women in Tamil Nadu are entitled to an equal share in their family property. The court upheld an order of 2017 making the same observation. The court observed that such an equal share in family or ancestral property would be at par with the Hindu Succession Act,1956.

Background:

A suit was filed in the trial court by Tribal woman and her daughter, the tribe being a notified tribe in Tamil Nadu which sought to get an equal share in their family property. Even though the order at par with their prayer was passed, the same was challenged before the Madras High Court by the make family members of their family. The major contention raised by the advocate on behalf of the male members was that the tribal women were expressly excluded as per section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act,1956.

Section 2(2) in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.

It was further submitted by the advocate on behalf of the male members that the property in dispute is a part of settlement agreement and hence cannot be shared with the two women.

The advocate on behalf of the two women said that the provisions of Hindu Succession Act,1956 will be applicable to them as they do not have any other statutes or customs which out outline the issue pertaining to their share in the family property.

High Court Observations:

The Madras High court observed that even if there were any prevailing customs which prevented the tribal women from having their own share of property, such a custom will not stand in the way of a public law.

The court observed that the purpose of section 2(2) of HSA, 1956 paves way for the central government to notify the tribal communities who have already moved forward and their primitive customs are not prevailing amongst the community for inheritance and hence cannot be considered to be a bar for invoking the provisions of the act.

Reliance was also put on the Supreme Court decision in Kamla Neti V. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors where the government was directed to re-examine the provisions of the Hindu succession act which deny the tribal woman a right to her family property.

The court observed that the backwardness of tribal population in the state of Tamil Nadu is not prevailing to such an extent so as to form an opinion that the custom of such tribal community is to be adopted and since there is no such custom established in this case the court said that the question of application of custom and practice in the matter of inheritance would not arise at all.

In the light of the aforementioned, the order of the trial court was upheld.

The court also said that the state of Tamil Nadu shall initiate necessary steps for the purpose of issuing appropriate notification through central government under section 2(2) of HSA, 1956 to protect the equal property rights of tribal women in the state.

Case: Saravanan v. Semmaye