Mizo Customary Law – Inheritance – Right of divorced daughter/Unmarried Granddaughter – District Council Court upon considering the factual matrix, particularly s. 109(3) and s. 109(10) of the Mizo Customary Law, observed that though as per the Mizo Customary Law, it is the youngest son, who would be entitled to inherit the property of his father; there is an ample scope for distribution of the property in a fair and reasonable manner – The District Council Court further found that under the Mizo Customary Law, inheritance also depends upon the responsibilities carried out by the legal heir – It was found that the son was looking after his widowed mother – However, after his death, appellant No.4 (divorced daughter) came back to her original home to look after her aged mother – The provision of Mizo Customary Law relating to ‘divorced’ (Hringkir) in the matter of inheritance would apply to her and her right to inheritance of her father’s properties subsists by virtue of her being divorced (Hringkir) and coming back to the original family for looking after the mother – Appellant No.4 looked after her mother till her death and also discharged the responsibility of erecting ceremonial tombstone for her mother – District Council Court found that since appellant No.4 had discharged her responsibility of looking after her mother till her death and was occupying the main bed and reassuming her father’s clan title ‘Hahu’, her right to inherit her father’s properties could not be defeated – It further found that on the other hand respondent No.3 though a female, was granddaughter from the male lineal descent of deceased – She was unmarried and purely a ‘Hahu’ in the line of P.S. Dahrawka – It found that her right to inheritance in the instant dispute was safeguarded by the Customary Law in the absence of descendants having a better right for the purpose – The District Council Court therefore found that taking into consideration the principle of Mizo Customary Law of Inheritance and the spirit of equity, which is paramount to Mizo Customary Law, it was appropriate that the property be divided between appellant No.4 and respondent No.3 – The view taken by the District Council Court, on second remand, was based on the consideration of equity and the responsibility of a legal heir to look after the elders in the family – High Court was not justified in reversing the order of District Council Court.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The District Council Court, Aizawl, on second remand, upon considering the factual matrix, particularly Section 109(3) and Section 109(10) of the Mizo Customary Law, observed that though as per the Mizo Customary Law, it is the youngest son, who would be entitled to inherit the property of his father; there is an ample scope for distribution of the property in a fair and reasonable manner. The District Council Court, Aizawl has found that in case of a rich father, the property can be divided proportionately amongst the sons. The District Council Court further found that insofar as the female members of the family, who are already married and living in separate households are concerned, they are not entitled to any share. The District Council Court further found that under the Mizo Customary Law, inheritance also depends upon the responsibilities carried out by the legal heir. It has been found that till his death, Thanhnuna was looking after his mother. However, after his death, Thansangi Huha (appellant No.4) came back to her original home to look after her aged mother Kaithuami. It was found that the provision of Mizo Customary Law relating to ‘divorced’ (Hringkir) in the matter of inheritance would apply to her and her right to inheritance of her father’s properties subsists by virtue of her being divorced (Hringkir) and coming back to the original family for looking after the mother. The District Council Court found that Thansangi Huha looked after her mother till her death and also discharged the responsibility of erecting ceremonial tombstone for her mother. The District Council Court also found that after exclusion of the daughters of deceased P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami, who were married and living in separate households and one daughter of Thanhnuna, i.e., Laldinpuii, who was also married into a different clan, the contest was between Thansangi Huha (appellant No.4), the youngest daughter of deceased P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami, who after divorce came back to her house and was looking after her mother on one hand and Lalmuanpuii (respondent No.3), the other daughter of deceased Thanhnuna. [Paras 15 and 16][986-D-H; 987-A-C]
2. The District Council Court found that since Thansangi Huha (appellant No.4 herein) had discharged her responsibility of looking after her mother till her death and was occupying the main bed and reassuming her father’s clan title ‘Hahu’, her right to inherit her father’s properties could not be defeated. It further found that on the other hand Lalmuanpuii (respondent No.3), though a female, was grand-daughter from the male lineal descent of deceased P.S. Dahrawka. She was unmarried and purely a ‘Hahu’ in the line of P.S. Dahrawka. It found that her right to inheritance in the instant dispute was safeguarded by the Customary Law in the absence of descendants having a better right for the purpose. The District Council Court therefore found that taking into consideration the principle of Mizo Customary Law of Inheritance and the spirit of equity, which is paramount to Mizo Customary Law, it was appropriate that the property be divided between Thansangi Huha (appellant No.4) and Lalmuanpuii (respondent No.3). [Para 17][987-C-F]
3. The view taken by the District Council Court, Aizawl, on second remand, is based on the consideration of equity and the responsibility of a legal heir to look after the elders in the family. [Para 19][988-A-B]
Thansiami v. Lalruatkima and Ors. (2012) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 309 – approved.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.