Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.2(2) – Application of the Act – Constitution of India – Articles 366(25), 341, 342 – Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 – ss.5, 6 – High Court held that the parties belonged to Sawara tribe, a notified scheduled tribe and thus, the HSA, 1956 does not apply to them – Granted a portion as property to M’s daughters and their descendants (respondents) on the grounds of justice, equity and good conscience – Correctness:
Held: HSA, 1956 clearly states that scheduled castes and tribes shall be outside its purview of application – Thus, HSA, 1956 does not apply to scheduled tribes – Therefore, the Courts below erred on this count, and the High Court took the correct view – Parties did not produce any notification demonstrating that the Sawara tribe stands de-notified – Further, ‘M’ passed away in 1951, that is, prior to the enactment of HSA, 1956 – No error in the judgment of the High Court applying the provisions of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 and more particularly s.6 thereof which postulates the application of the principle of justice, equity and good conscience, to account for possibilities not covered by s.5 of the Act – Appeal has no merit, dismissed. [Paras 4-7, 9]
Tribals – Female Tribals – Right of survivorship to – Recommendation to Central Government, reiterated: Held: Recommendation/suggestion made to the Central Government in the case of in Kamla Neti v. LAO to look into pathways to secure the right of survivorship to female tribals, reiterated – Hindu Succession Act, 1956. [Para 11]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.