Contents
Bejla Oraon v. Kali Das Oraon & Ors. – Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 @ SLP(C) No. 23458 of 2024 – 2026 INSC 672 : 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1302 – 9 July 2026 – Sanjay Karol, N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
PDF Link: sci.gov.in
1. Parties & Impugned Order
- Appellant: Legal heir of original plaintiff Sukhu Oraon, claiming title as the nearest surviving male agnate.
- Impugned Order: Judgment dated 10 June 2024 by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Second Appeal No. 35 of 1995 (which had affirmed the concurrent dismissals by the 1st Additional District Judge, Gumla in TA No. 42 of 1990 and Munsif, Gumla in TS No. 22 of 1975).
2. Factual Matrix
- Common ancestor Sukhu Oraon had three sons: Dhungru, Ledura, and Bhoula.
- The plaintiff (Bejla/Sukhu) is the second son of Dhungru.
- Bhoula’s daughter Budhain and her husband Punai claimed inheritance over Ledura’s property on the assertion that Ledura (who was issueless) took Punai as a ghardamad (resident son-in-law).
- It was undisputed that under Oraon custom, daughters do not inherit ancestral property.
- The defence set up a deed dated 27 February 1975 allegedly partitioning properties to confer title onto Punai.
- The plaintiff argued that no partition occurred and that no customary law allows an uncle-in-law to induct his niece’s husband as a ghardamad.
3. Findings of the Lower Courts
- Trial Court: Relied on Sarat Chandra Roy’s treatise (The Oraons of Chota Nagpur, pp. 375–376), held that Punai’s status as ghardamad was proved, and dismissed the suit.
- First Appellate Court: Affirmed, holding Punai was adopted as ghardamad by either Ledura or the widow of Bhoula.
- High Court: Framed a substantial question of law regarding an uncle-in-law’s legal ability to adopt/induct a ghardamad, but dismissed the appeal citing concurrent findings of fact.
4. Arguments Before the Supreme Court
- Appellant: Customary law requires strict proof of antiquity, certainty, reasonableness, and continuous observance. The oral evidence was contradictory, daughters hold no inheritance rights, a lease/partition deed cannot confer title without pre-existing right, and concurrent findings based on unproven custom warrant interference under Article 136.
- Respondent:Ghardamad custom is well-established and supported by villager testimony; Punai continuously resided as ghardamad; the lease/partition was executed with due permission; and three courts below concurrently accepted the custom.
5. Ratio Decidendi
- Burden & Standard of Proving Custom:
- He who alleges a custom must prove it, establishing antiquity, continuous usage, certainty, and reasonableness (citing Halsbury’s Laws, 4th Edn., Vol. 12(1), paras 606, 626–627, and Section 48 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872).
- A custom cannot simply be assumed or extended by analogy.
- Scope of the Ghardamad Custom:
- Oraon custom recognizes a ghardamad inducted by a father-in-law (the last male owner or his widow) to inherit, but there is no recognized custom permitting an uncle-in-law to induct his niece’s husband as a ghardamad to inherit ancestral property.
- S.C. Roy’s text requires adoption by the last male holder or his widow, not an agnatic uncle.
- Validity of Partition / Lease:
- Partition can only occur among co-sharers with pre-existing title. Absent customary inheritance rights, neither a lease nor an alleged partition deed could create or confer title onto Punai.
- The High Court erred in presuming the existence of a custom merely from the “absence of an express bar.”
6. Supreme Court’s Decision
- Appeal allowed.
- The judgments and decrees of the High Court, First Appellate Court, and Trial Court are set aside.
- The plaintiff’s suit is decreed. Parties left to bear their own costs.
7. Precedents Quoted in the Ruling
- Proof of Custom:
- Abdul Hussein Khan v. Bibi Sona Dero (1917)
- Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari (1952)
- Ujagar Singh v. Jeo (1959)
- Salekh Chand v. Satya Gupta (2008)
- Aliyathammuda Beethathebiyyappura Pookoya v. Pattakal Cheriyakoya (2019)
- Scope of Article 136 Interference:
- Srinivas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad (1951)
- Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983)
- Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare (1989)
- Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole (2024)
- Ramachandran v. Vijayan (2024)
