NEW DELHI: <\/em>The Supreme Court<\/a><\/strong> has allowed an appeal in a tribal property dispute and reversed the findings of three courts<\/strong>. The case was about whether a son-in-law could claim land rights as ghardamad<\/em> under local custom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment was delivered by Justice Sanjay Karol, with Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh<\/strong> on the Bench. The Court said that custom cannot be accepted only because one side says it exists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court relied on the settled rule that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAll customs of which the courts do not take judicial notice must be clearly proved to exist, the onus of establishing them being upon the parties relying upon their existence.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The dispute arose within a family over inheritance of land<\/strong>. One side claimed that daughters had no share under the local custom<\/strong>. The other side claimed that the son-in-law had become ghardamad<\/em><\/strong> and therefore had rights in the property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After checking the evidence, the Supreme Court found that there was no clear proof of partition in the family. It also found that the witnesses supporting the ghardamad<\/em> claim were inconsistent on important facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On daughters\u2019 rights, the Court accepted the evidence and held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHence, as proven, daughters do not get any right or share in the property.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court accepted that a ghardamad<\/em> may get property from his father-in-law if the custom is proved. It observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt appears from all the testimonies that the custom of a son-in-law(ghardamad) acquiring a right in the property of his father-in-law is proved.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n But this did not decide the case in favour of the contesting side, because the alleged adoption was not by the father-in-law. The Court said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt is nowhere established that an uncle-in-law can adopt his niece\u2019s husband as his ghardamad within the prevalent customary law.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also rejected the claim based on the alleged lease or partition document. It said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt is also well established that a partition can be affected only amongst people who have shares between them.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court made the main legal position clear:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThose who allege a custom must be the one to prove it.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court said that property rights cannot be taken away by vague claims of custom<\/strong>. A custom must be specifically proved, and the person claiming benefit from it must show that it applies to the facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the Supreme Court held that the wider custom claimed in the case was not proved. Therefore, the nearest male agnate would inherit the property<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The appeal was allowed<\/strong>, and the judgments of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and High Court were set aside.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How It Applied In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Article 136, Constitution of India<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Gives Supreme Court power to interfere in exceptional cases through special leave jurisdiction.<\/td> The Court used this power to interfere despite concurrent findings of three courts, because the findings on custom and inheritance were legally flawed.<\/td><\/tr> Section 100, CPC<\/strong><\/td> Deals with Second Appeal before High Court on substantial questions of law.<\/td> Supreme Court said once High Court framed a substantial question of law, it had to properly decide it, not avoid it merely because lower courts had concurrent findings.<\/td><\/tr> Section 48, Evidence Act<\/a>, 1872<\/strong><\/td> Allows courts to consider opinions of persons likely to know about existence of a custom.<\/td> Used while explaining how tribal\/local customs must be proved before court.<\/td><\/tr> Law on Customary Rights<\/strong><\/td> A custom must be ancient, certain, reasonable, continuous and properly proved.<\/td> The Court held that a person claiming property through custom must prove that custom clearly. Vague claims are not enough.<\/td><\/tr> Law on Lease Deed<\/strong><\/td> A lease deed only gives leasehold rights; it does not transfer ownership\/title.<\/td> The Court held that the alleged lease deed could not confer title in the property.<\/td><\/tr> Law on Partition<\/strong><\/td> Partition can happen only between persons who already have a share in the property.<\/td> Since the person claiming through partition had no proved share, the alleged partition could not create title.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n