Saravanan V Semmayee Case Analysis

Saravanan v.
Semmayee
In this appeal, a trial court order by Additional District Court Salem was challenged in the
High Court of Madras. In the trial court order, the wife and daughter of Mr. Ramasamy
sought a partition of the property that belonged to him, claiming they were entitled to 2/5
equal and separate share. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' claim to the property, stating
that some properties had been sold to the second plaintiff's husband and that there was an oral
partition between the parties. The question arose before the court was that whether the parties
to the suit are to be construed as Hindus for the purpose of application of Hindu Succession
Act. The court held in affirmative and granted the relief of partition and equal share to Tribal
women on par with their counterparts/male copercenors. Aggrieved by the trial court’s order,
the defendants approached the High Court.
The issue before the High Court was that whether section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956 excludes tribal women from the application of the provision of the Act and whether they
are entitled to equal share of property at par with male copercenors. Additionally, the High
Court also examined the issue that whether in the present matter, the parties could establish
any custom or practice to claim such exclusion as provided under section 2(2) of the Act.
Scheduled tribes are not excluded from the definition of "Hindu" under Section 2(1) of the
Hindu Succession Act, which applies to all persons who are not Muslim, Christian, Parsi or
Jew unless it is proven that they would not have been governed by Hindu law or customs.
Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 states that “Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any
Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless
the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.”
The Court in its examination of the provision held that in cases where customs and usage are
not established, the Central Government must issue a notification to enable tribal women to
receive equal shares in family property. However, the non-issuance or postponement of
notification does not deprive Scheduled Tribe women of their right to equal shares in family
property. Section 2(2) does not completely bar the application of the Hindu Succession Act,
but rather provides a way for the Central Government to notify tribal communities where
primitive customs and practices are not prevailing for inheritance.
The Court held that section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act postpones its application until a
notification is issued, implying that scheduled tribes are also Hindus. Scheduled tribes who
adhere to their customs are different from those who were previously Hindu. The court's view
is that such Hindu tribes fall under section 2(1)(c) of the Act and can be treated as "Hindu"
since there is no evidence to prove that they couldn't have been influenced by Hindu law.
Tribal women do not have direct inheritance rights and their rights have only evolved through
judicial interventions. The "test of Hinduisation" was established by the Chattisgarh High
Court in the case of Smt. Butaki Bai v. Sukhbati, providing requirements for tribal women to
benefit from the Hindu Succession Act. The women must prove that they have abandoned
their customary succession and have become "Hindus out and out" or "sufficiently Hindus" to
be governed by Hindu law. This requires appropriate evidence to be presented to the court.
In the case of Budhu Manjhi v. Dukhan Majhi, the Patna High Court held that parties do not
need to be fully "Hinduised" to be governed by Hindu law of succession. If they have been
sufficiently influenced by Hindu law, it is enough to be considered for matters of inheritance
and succession.
In the case of Salek Chand v. Satya Gupta, the Supreme Court held that if a custom is being
used to prove that it is different from the ordinary law, it must be proven that it is not against
public policy, it is ancient, continuous, invariable, notorious, not forbidden by the legislature,
and not opposed to morality or public policy.
The Court held that the defendants in a case related to inheritance failed to establish any
custom or practice that would exempt them from the Hindu Succession Act. The Trial Court
therefore correctly considered them as Hindus and granted the plaintiffs an equal share in the
partition. The court stated that any custom or practice related to inheritance must be both
certain and continuously practiced within the community, which was not the case in this
situation. The exclusion clause under Section 2(2) of the Act did not apply to the case at
hand. The court found that the relationship between the parties was not in dispute and that the
Trial Court rightly applied the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, granting the relief of
partition to the plaintiffs. As a result, the court saw no reason to interfere further in the case.
The court however recommended the Government of Tamil Nadu to initiate necessary steps
for the purpose of issuing appropriate notification through Central Government under Section
2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, to protect the equal property right of the tribal
women in the state of Tamil Nadu.

Saravanan V Semmayee Case Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saravanan V Semmayee Case Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saravanan V Semmayee Case Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saravanan v.

You might also like