The Supreme Court ruled that an uncle-in-law cannot adopt his niece’s husband as a “ghardamad” for inheritance unless such a custom is legally proved. Setting aside three concurrent judgments, the Court held that the alleged Oraon tribal custom lacked sufficient evidence under customary law.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, ruled that an uncle-in-law cannot claim to have adopted his niece’s husband as a “ghardamad (resident son-in-law)” for inheritance purposes unless the existence of such a custom is proved. The Court set aside concurrent decisions of three courts in a property dispute involving members of the Oraon tribal community in Jharkhand.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal filed by Bejla Oraon. It found that the defendants failed to establish the existence of the claimed custom and, accordingly, decreed the plaintiff’s suit.
The apex court held that the defendants had not shown that customary law recognized such adoption by an uncle-in-law. The Justice Karol-led Bench observed,
“It is nowhere established that an uncle-in-law can adopt his niece’s husband as his ghardamad within the prevalent customary law,”
The Supreme Court acknowledged that “the custom of a ghardamad acquiring rights in the property of his father-in-law stood proved on the evidence.” However, it noted that no evidence was produced to show that this custom also applied where the adopter was the niece’s husband’s uncle-in-law. It stressed that the party asserting a custom must prove it.
The Supreme Court observed,
“Those who allege a custom must be the one to prove it. Merely observing that the opposite to what has been alleged is not clearly stated, cannot be stated to be sufficient,”
The Court reiterated that reliance on customary practice requires proof not only of the custom’s existence but also that the claimant is governed by it. “He who alleges the custom must prove it. He must also prove that he is in fact governed by said custom,” the judgment said. It further emphasized that long usage, prevalence, and consistent practice must be established through evidence.
The dispute concerned ancestral property of an Oraon family. The defendants claimed inheritance through Punai Oraon, arguing that he had been accepted as a ghardamad by Ledura Oraon, who was said to be childless. The plaintiff contested the claim, stating that no such customary practice existed.
The Supreme Court found that the courts below had accepted the existence of the custom without proper supporting evidence. It also criticized the Jharkhand High Court for framing a substantial question of law without deciding it. The Justice Karol-led Bench said,
“Ordinarily, once a substantial question is framed, the parties have to be heard and issue decided accordingly,”
After assessing the evidence and the customary law applicable to the Oraon community, the Supreme Court concluded that, besides the recognized rule allowing a ghardamad to inherit from his father-in-law, the other customs pleaded by the defendants were not proved. It held,
“The customs as alleged, apart from the ghardamad’s eligibility to get property of his father-in-law, could not be proved,”
The Court added that in the absence of a properly established custom, the nearest male agnate would be entitled to inherit the property.
As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the trial court, the first appellate court, and the Jharkhand High Court judgments. It decreed the plaintiff’s suit and directed that all consequential reliefs follow, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE