Supreme Court of India
SMT. KAITHUAMI [L] THROUGH L.RS.versusSMT. RALLIANI AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2022 INSC 475
- Decided
- 26 April 2022
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- L NAGESWARA RAO
Holding
Under Mizo Customary Law, inheritance rights depend on both lineage and the heir's responsibilities, so a divorced daughter who cared for her mother and assumed the clan title, as well as a granddaughter in the male line, are entitled to inherit, warranting a division of the property between them.
Summary
The dispute concerned the inheritance of property belonging to the late P.S. Dahrawka and his wife Kaithuami under Mizo Customary Law. The appellant, Thansangi Huha, a divorced daughter who returned to care for her aged mother, claimed a share, while the respondents, including the widow Ralliani and the granddaughter Lalmuanpuii, asserted their own rights. The key issue was whether a divorced daughter (Hringkir) and a female descendant could inherit, given the customary provisions that link inheritance to the responsibilities performed for elders, as outlined in sections 109(3) and 109(10) of the Mizo Customary Law. The District Council Court held that the heir’s duty to support the mother and the assumption of the clan title entitled Thansangi Huha to inherit, and likewise recognized Lalmuanpuii’s right as a granddaughter in the male line, ordering a division of the property. The Gauhati High Court reversed this decision, but the Supreme Court reinstated the District Court’s judgment, emphasizing equity and the customary rule that responsibility governs inheritance. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the High Court order was set aside, and the District Court’s order dividing the property between the appellant and the granddaughter was affirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether a divorced daughter (Hringkir) under Mizo Customary Law is entitled to inherit her father's property.
- Whether the responsibility of caring for parents influences inheritance rights under Mizo Customary Law.
- Whether married female members living separately have any share in inheritance under the customary law.
- Whether the High Court erred in reversing the District Council Court's equitable decision.
- Interpretation of sections 109(3) and 109(10) of the Mizo Customary Law concerning inheritance.
Subjects
Mizo Customary LawInheritanceDivorced daughterHringkirEquityResponsibilityProperty divisionSuccession
Judgment
978 SUPREME COURT
[2022]REPORTS
4 S.C.R. 978 [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A SMT. KAITHUAMI [L] THROUGH L.RS.
v.
SMT. RALLIANI AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7159-7160 of 2008)
B
APRIL 26, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Mizo Customary Law – Inheritance – Right of divorced
C 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
D
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
E 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
F 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
G father’s properties could not be defeated – It further found that
on the other hand respondent No.3 though a female, was grand-
daughter 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
H safeguarded by the Customary Law in the absence of descendants
978
SMT. KAITHUAMI [L] THROUGH L.RS. v. SMT. RALLIANI AND 979
OTHERS
having a better right for the purpose – The District Council Court A
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,
B
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
C
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 D
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
E
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 F
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 G
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
H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A 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,
B
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]
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),
D 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
E 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]
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]
G Thansiami v. Lalruatkima and Ors. (2012) 2 Gauhati
Law Reports 309 – approved.
H
SMT. KAITHUAMI [L] THROUGH L.RS. v. SMT. RALLIANI AND 981
OTHERS
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7159- A
7160 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2007 of the High Court
of Gauhati, Aizwal Bench in RSA No.12 of 2006 and Cross Objection
No.04 of 2006. B
Robin Ratnakar David, Munawwar Naseem, Dhiraj Abraham
Philip, Febin V. Mathew, Samuel David, Advs. for the Appellants.
Pragyan Pradeep Sharma, Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Kartikay Dutia,
Ranjit Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents. C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B. R. GAVAI, J.
1. Application for substitution to bring on record legal representatives D
of the deceased appellant No.3-Thanzami is allowed, subject to all just
exceptions.
2. The present appeals challenge the common judgment and order
of the Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench, dated 7th November, 2007, E
passed in RSA No.12 of 2006 with Cross Objection No.4 of 2006, vide
which, the learned single judge of the High Court has allowed the said
Second Appeal filed by the respondents herein and dismissed the cross-
objection preferred by the appellants herein.
F
3. For appreciating the controversy in question, it will be appropriate
to reproduce the family chart*, which is as under:
G
* Ed. Note: The family chart is on next page. H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
SMT. KAITHUAMI [L] THROUGH L.RS. v. SMT. RALLIANI AND 983
OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
4. P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami, through whom the parties herein A
are claiming inheritance, were married to each other on 28 th January,
1927. Ten children were born out of the said wedlock, i.e., two sons and
eight daughters. Out of the said ten children, one son died at the age of
one and half year in the year 1940 and one daughter died a week after
her birth.
B
5. Though in the judgment, the High Court has referred that the
property in dispute was purchased by P.S. Dahrawka in the year 1972
by virtue of LSC No. AZL 56 of 1972, it is the contention of the appellants
herein that the said property was jointly purchased by P.S. Dahrawka
and Kaithuami in the year 1945. P.S. Dahrawka died on 5th March, 1978.
At the time of his death, he was survived by his wife Kaithuami, only C
son Thanhnuna and seven daughters. All the daughters were married
and living with their respective families. After his death, his youngest
daughter, Thansangi Huha (appellant No.4 herein), was divorced and
came to live with her mother Kaithuami in January, 1997. The son
Thanhnuna, who died in the year 1996, was survived by his widow Ralliani D
and two daughters, namely, Laldinpuii and Lalmuanpuii, who are the
respondents herein.
6. After the death of P.S. Dahrawka, the son Thanhnuna applied
for the heirship certificate in his name in respect of the properties
covered by LSC No. AZL 56 of 1972 left by his father, i.e., P.S. E
Dahrawka. His claim was based on the Mizo Customary Law of
Inheritance, which provides that a son shall inherit the properties of a
Mizo and if the deceased is survived by more than one son, the youngest
son shall inherit the property. However, before his application for
heirship certificate could be decided, Thanhnuna died on 28th April,
1996. After his death, his mother Kaithuami submitted an objection on F
31 st May, 1996. The Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl
dismissed the application of Thanhnuna for heirship certificate on 11th
June, 1996 due to his death. His widow Ralliani (respondent No.1
herein) filed an application for restoration of application for heirship
certificate filed by her husband-deceased Thanhnuna. The same was G
dismissed by the Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl vide order
dated 3rd July, 1996.
7. In the meantime, mother Kaithuami also filed an application
being H.C. No.1275 of 1996 claiming heirship certificate in respect of
the properties of her husband deceased P.S. Dahrawka. The said H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A application was objected to by Ralliani and her two daughters. As such,
the dispute came to be converted into a civil suit being Civil Suit No.13
of 1996 in the Court of Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl. Vide
judgment and order dated 7th August, 1997, the said suit came to be
decreed in favour of the mother Kaithuami and she was declared the
legal heir of her deceased husband P.S. Dahrawka in respect of the
B
disputed properties.
8. The respondents herein filed an appeal being C.A. No. 12 of
1997 before the District Council Court, Aizawl. The Appellate Court
vide order dated 9th July, 2001 directed that the disputed property to be
divided between four daughters of Kaithuami, i.e., respondents therein
C (i.e. appellants herein) on one hand and three appellants therein (i.e.
respondents herein) being legal heirs of Thanhnuna on the other hand.
9. The said judgment and order of the Appellate Court was assailed
by the appellants herein before the High Court in RSA No.3 of 2001.
The High Court vide judgment and order dated 13th May, 2003, observed
D that there was no meaningful discussion on the legal entitlements of
either of the parties in the changed situation following the death of the
predecessors-in-interest of both the parties, and as such, remitted the
matter to the First Appellate Court, Aizawl, i.e., District Council Court,
Aizawl for deciding the appeal afresh.
E 10. On remand, the District Council Court, Aizawl disposed of the
appeal vide judgment and order dated 10th July, 2003. As per the said
judgment, only the appellants herein were held to be entitled to the property
of deceased P.S. Dahrawka to the exclusion of the widow and daughters
of deceased Thanhnuna (respondents herein). Being aggrieved thereby,
F the respondents herein preferred RSA No. 9 of 2003 before the High
Court. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 9th March, 2005
again remanded the case to the First Appellate Court, i.e., District Council
Court, Aizawl to decide the matter afresh upon hearing the parties. The
District Council Court, Aizawl, on remand, vide judgment and order dated
28th February, 2006, partly allowed the appeal in the following terms:
G
“1) That Respondent No. (d) namely Smt. Thansangi Huha shall
inherit.
(a) The main house named “AHIMSA” and
(b) the Assam type building on the roadside above
H ‘AHIMSA’ adjacent in the south to RCC building on the
SMT. KAITHUAMI [L] THROUGH L.RS. v. SMT. RALLIANI AND 985
OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
roadside including the land they are standing on covered A
by LSC AZL No.54/72.
2. The Appellant No.3 namely Smt. Lalmuanpuii Huha shall inherit:-
(a) RCC building on the roadside adjacent in the north to
the Assam type building stated at (I) (b) above and
B
(b) Assam type building on the roadside adjacent in the north
to the building stated at 2(a) above including the land
they are standing on covered by LSC AZL No.54/72.”
11. Being aggrieved, the respondents herein preferred Second
Appeal being RSA No.12 of 2006 before the High Court and the C
appellants herein preferred Cross-Objection No. 4 of 2006. By the
impugned judgment and order dated 7th November, 2007, the High Court
has allowed the said Second Appeal and dismissed the Cross-Objection,
thereby holding that it is only the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein being
legal heirs of Thanhnuna, who were entitled to the rights in the property
D
to the exclusion of the appellants herein. Being aggrieved, the present
appeals by way of special leave.
12. We have heard Mr. Robin Ratnakar David, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Pragyan Pradeep Sharma,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
E
13. Mr. Robin Ratnakar David, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants, would submit that the High Court failed to take into
consideration that under the Mizo Customary Law it is not only the rights
which are inherited, but it is also the responsibilities which are inherited.
It is submitted that the inheritance depends upon the responsibilities
F
discharged by a legal heir towards his/her parents in their old age. It is
submitted that the deceased Thanhnuna was residing separately and it
was only the appellant No.4-Thansangi Huha, the youngest daughter of
the deceased P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami, who was taking care of
her aged mother Kaithuami. It is further submitted that the deceased
P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami had entered into an agreement dated 28th G
January, 1927 and agreed that they would inherit each other’s property,
and as such, on the death of her husband P.S. Dahrawka, his property
was inherited by Kaithuami, and on her death, by their daughters. It is
submitted that since Thanhnuna had not looked after his mother or the
family members, he or his legal heirs were not entitled to any rights in
H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A the property. As such, the High Court had grossly erred in allowing the
Second Appeal and dismissing the Cross-Objection.
14. Shri Pragyan Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents, on the contrary, would submit that the High
Court has rightly allowed the Second Appeal filed by the respondents
B herein and dismissed the Cross-Objection filed by the appellants herein.
It is submitted that the property in question was not covered by the
agreement dated 28th January, 1927 and is guided by the Mizo Customary
Law. It is submitted that the suit property being LSC No. AZL 56 of
1972 was purchased only by P.S. Dahrawka and deceased Kaithuami
had no contribution in the purchase of the said property. It is submitted
C that according to Mizo Customary Law, Thanhnuna being the only son
was the only legal heir of his late father P.S. Dahrawka. It is submitted
that Thansangi Huha (appellant No.4 herein) was divorced on 20 th June,
1980. She however chose not to stay with her mother for 17 long years.
It is submitted that she came to live with her mother Kaithuami only
D after the death of Thanhnuna. It is therefore submitted that the present
appeals deserve to be dismissed.
15. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the
District Council Court, Aizawl, on second remand, upon considering the
factual matrix, particularly Section 109(3) and Section 109(10) of the
E 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.
F
16. 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
G 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 herein) 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
H apply to her and her right to inheritance of her father’s properties subsists
SMT. KAITHUAMI [L] THROUGH L.RS. v. SMT. RALLIANI AND 987
OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
by virtue of her being divorced (Hringkir) and coming back to the original A
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
B
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 herein), 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 herein), the other daughter of deceased C
Thanhnuna.
17. 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 D
could not be defeated. It further found that on the other hand Lalmuanpuii
(respondent No.3 herein), 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. E
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
herein) and Lalmuanpuii (respondent No.3 herein). F
18. The Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench, speaking through
Madan B. Lokur, C.J. (as he then was), in the case of Thansiami vs.
Lalruatkima and ors.1 has also held that the inheritance depends upon
the question as to whether a person supports the deceased in his old age
or not. It has been held that even if a natural heir does not support his G
parents, he would not be entitled to inheritance. It has further been held
that even if there is a natural heir, a person who supports the person until
his death could inherit the properties of that person.
1
(2012) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 309 H
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A 19. We therefore find that 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.
The said view is also supported by the judgment of the Gauhati High
Court, Aizawl Bench in the case of Thansiami vs. Lalruatkima and
ors. (supra). We respectfully agree with the said view.
B
20. We are therefore of the considered view that the High Court
was not justified in reversing the well-reasoned and equitable judgment
and order passed by the District Council Court dated 28 th February, 2006
in C.A. No.12 of 1997.
C 21. In the result, we pass the following order:
A. The appeals are allowed.
B. The judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court, Aizawl
Bench dated 7th November, 2007 in RSA No.12 of 2006
and Cross Objection No.4 of 2006, is quashed and set aside.
D
C. The judgment and order of the District Council Court, Aizawl
dated 28th February, 2006 in C.A. No.12 of 1997, is affirmed.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
E
Devika Gujral Appeals allowed.
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Mizo Customary Law"Sign in to search