The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that members of Scheduled Tribes are governed by their customary laws of succession unless they have been proven to have fully abandoned those customs and become "Hindus out and out." In this case, the court dismissed a decades-old suit for declaration and partition of ancestral land, emphasizing that long-standing revenue entries, coupled with inaction for over 40 years, render claims time-barred and legally unsustainable.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Smt. Ashawati, sought declaration of her share and partition of ancestral agricultural land in Village Dongripali, originally held by her father, late Dharam Singh Bariha. She claimed entitlement to one-half share under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as a daughter of the deceased’s second wife, Harsovati. The respondents, her siblings and their descendants, contested this, asserting that the family belongs to the Binjhwar Scheduled Tribe, whose succession is governed by customary law, not statutory Hindu law.
Procedural History
- 1971 - 1972: Mutation entries (Serial Nos. 87 and 88) deleted the names of Ashawati, her mother (late Durpati), and other heirs from revenue records, certifying partition in favor of sons and their descendants.
- 2013: Ashawati filed Civil Suit No. 09-A/2013 seeking declaration of her share and partition, claiming she only discovered the mutation on 13.03.2013.
- 2014: Additional District Judge, Sarangarh, dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant failed to prove entitlement under statutory or customary law and that the suit was barred by limitation.
- 2026: Appeal filed under Section 96 CPC before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought: (1) declaration that the 1972 mutation order was illegal and void; (2) partition of ancestral property to grant her one-half share; and (3) possession of her rightful portion.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 excludes Scheduled Tribe members from its purview unless they have abandoned their customary law, and whether a long-standing revenue mutation, unchallenged for over four decades, can be set aside in a civil suit without proof of fraud or jurisdictional defect.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that: (1) she was a minor at the time of mutation and never consented to the deletion of her name; (2) the mutation was obtained without notice, inquiry, or proper procedure; (3) the Hindu Succession Act applies unless proven otherwise, and the respondents failed to establish a binding customary law excluding daughters; and (4) the suit was timely as she only discovered the mutation in 2013.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that: (1) the Binjhwar community is a Scheduled Tribe governed by customary law, under which daughters do not inherit during the lifetime of sons; (2) the 1972 mutation order has attained finality and cannot be challenged after 41 years; (3) the appellant was present and accepted her allotted share, as evidenced by her continuous possession; and (4) the judgment in Smt. Butaki Bai v. Sukhbati squarely applies, barring inheritance claims under Hindu law without proof of Hinduisation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the applicability of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which explicitly excludes Scheduled Tribes from its operation unless they have become "Hindus out and out" or "sufficiently Hinduised." The Court relied on its own precedent in Smt. Butaki Bai v. Sukhbati, holding that mere membership in a Scheduled Tribe is sufficient to invoke the exclusion, and the burden lies on the claimant to prove adoption of Hindu law.
"In the absence of such pleading or proof, the statutory exclusion contained in Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, squarely applies, and the appellant/plaintiff cannot claim any right of inheritance or partition under the said Act."
The Court further held that mutation entries, while not conclusive of title, carry a presumption of correctness when unchallenged for decades. The appellant’s prolonged silence - over 40 years - while in possession of her allotted land, constituted acquiescence. The Court rejected the claim of ignorance, noting that a person in possession of ancestral land cannot credibly claim unawareness of its revenue status.
The Court also emphasized that allegations of fraud require strict proof, which was entirely absent. The appellant failed to demonstrate forgery of thumb impressions, lack of consent, or procedural illegality by the revenue authorities. Her own testimony - admitting ignorance of her age, property extent, and inability to recall key facts - further undermined her credibility.
Finally, the Court held that the suit was barred by limitation. The cause of action arose in 1972, or at the latest upon her attaining majority. Delay of over four decades defeats the policy of finality underlying the Limitation Act.
The Verdict
The appellant’s appeal was dismissed. The Court held that customary tribal law governs succession for Scheduled Tribes absent proof of Hinduisation, and that long-standing, unchallenged mutation entries cannot be overturned in civil suits after inordinate delay without proof of fraud or jurisdictional error. The trial court’s decree was affirmed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Customary Law Prevails Unless Proven Otherwise
- Practitioners must now prove, with credible evidence, that a Scheduled Tribe member has abandoned customary succession to invoke the Hindu Succession Act.
- Mere assertion of tribal identity is sufficient to trigger Section 2(2) exclusion; the burden of proving Hinduisation rests entirely on the claimant.
Mutation Entries Gain Immunity Through Acquiescence
- A mutation order unchallenged for over 30 years creates a strong presumption of validity.
- Continuous possession and silence for decades constitute acquiescence, barring collateral attacks in civil suits.
- Plaintiffs must plead and prove fraud, forgery, or jurisdictional defect with specific evidence - not mere allegations.
Limitation Bars Stale Claims in Property Disputes
- Suits challenging revenue mutations must be filed within three years of knowledge, or upon attaining majority if a minor.
- Courts will not entertain claims after 40+ years, even if the claimant was a minor at the time, unless fraud is conclusively established.
- Delay alone, especially when coupled with possession, is fatal to the claim.
