Explore a fascinating legal case where the District Council Court meticulously analyzed the principles of Mizo Customary Law in matters of inheritance. The court’s emphasis on equity, familial responsibilities, and the intricate interplay of these factors in determining inheritance sheds light on the nuances of succession law. Dive into the complexities of inheritance rights and the impact of fulfilling familial duties in this intriguing legal saga.
Facts
- Kaithuami filed an application for heirship certificate for her deceased husband P.S. Dahrawka, which was decreed in her favor based on Mizo Customary Law of Inheritance.
- Appellate Court directed division of disputed property between Kaithuami’s daughters and Thanhnuna’s legal heirs.
- High Court allowed substitution of legal representatives for deceased appellant No.3.
- Dispute arose regarding the ownership of property purchased by P.S. Dahrawka, with appellants contending it was jointly purchased with Kaithuami.
- P.S. Dahrawka was survived by his wife, son, and daughters, with the youngest daughter returning to live with her mother after being divorced.
- Son Thanhnuna applied for heirship certificate but died before it could be decided.
- Appeals and cross-objections were filed by the aggrieved parties before the High Court, converting the dispute into a civil suit.
- High Court remanded the case to the First Appellate Court for fresh decision after the death of predecessors-in-interest of both parties.
- District Council Court decided the matter, holding only the appellants were entitled to the property to the exclusion of the respondents.
- Respondents appealed to the High Court and challenged the decision.
- The High Court allowed the Second Appeal filed by the respondents and dismissed the cross-objection by the appellants.
Also Read: Presumption of Genuine Endorsements in Cheque Case
Arguments
- The appellant argued that the deceased Thanhuna was residing separately and only the youngest daughter was taking care of the mother
- It was mentioned that an agreement dated 28th January, 1927 dictated inheritance of property between the deceased’s parents, and then to their daughters
- The appellant contended that since Thanhuna did not look after the family, he or his heirs were not entitled to any rights in the property
- The appellant’s counsel highlighted the Mizo Customary Law, stating that inheritance is tied to the responsibilities discharged towards parents
- It was noted that the youngest daughter came to live with her mother only after Thanhuna’s death
- Additionally, it was mentioned that the property in question was purchased solely by the deceased father, and not by the deceased mother
- The appellant claimed that under the Mizo Customary Law, Thanhuna being the only son was the sole legal heir of the father
- The present appeals are submitted to be dismissed.
Also Read: Medical Negligence and Compensation: A Landmark Decision
Analysis
- The District Council Court, Aizawl, observed that Mizo Customary Law allows for fair distribution of property despite the general preference for the youngest son to inherit.
- In the case of a wealthy father, property can be divided proportionately among sons.
- Female family members who are already married and living separately are not entitled to inheritance.
- Thansangi Huha, despite being divorced and returning to look after her mother, was deemed eligible to inherit her father’s property due to fulfilling her responsibilities and reclaiming her father’s clan title.
- Inheritance under Mizo Customary Law also takes into account the responsibilities carried out by the legal heirs.
- Lalmuanpuii, as a granddaughter from the male lineal descent, had a right to inheritance in the absence of descendants with better claims.
- A natural heir who does not support his parents may not be entitled to inheritance according to the Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench.
- The principle of Mizo Customary Law of Inheritance and the spirit of equity, which is paramount to Mizo Customary Law, were considered in the decision.
- The property was divided between Thansangi Huha and Lalmuanpuii based on these principles.
- Inheritance is dependent on whether a person supports the deceased in their old age according to the judgment.
- High Court was not justified in reversing the judgment and order passed by the District Council Court
- A person who supports another until his death could inherit the properties of that person
- The view taken by the District Council Court on second remand is based on equity and the responsibility of a legal heir to look after the elders in the family
Also Read: Remand of Writ Petition for Restoration and Decision on Merits
Decision
- The appeals have been allowed.
- The judgment and order of the District Council Court, Aizawl dated 28 February, 2006 in C.A. No.12 of 1997 have been affirmed.
- No costs have been ordered.
- The judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench dated 7 November, 2007 in RSA No.12 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.4 of 2006 have been quashed and set aside.
Case Title: SMT. KAITHUAMI(L) TR.LRS.. Vs. SMT. RALLIANI (2022 INSC 475)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007159-007160 / 2008
