New Delhi: A Chhattisgarh woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe and her legal heirs are in fact entitled to portions of their ancestral property despite lower courts ruling to the contrary, as denying the lady her fair share when no law holds otherwise would exacerbate gender discrimination, the Supreme Court said.

The top court was hearing an appeal from the legal heirs of the woman, named Dhaiya, who was denied an equal share of her father's property.

The trial court in the case, an appeals court as well as the Chhattisgarh high court had ruled that Dhaiya did not have a right to a share of the property because the plaintiffs could not prove she was so entitled under any custom.

While this is true, no party in the case was able to establish the presence of a custom wherein she would be denied this entitlement either, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi noted on Thursday (July 17).

Under these circumstances, where customs provide no guidance on the issue of her inheritance, the “principle of justice, equity and good conscience” must apply as under the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, which had not been repealed at the time Dhaiya's father died, the top court said.

In light of this, noting that Dhaiya and her heirs would be denied the right to property if one accepts the logic that there is no custom granting them this right, the court said that “customs too, like the law, cannot remain stuck in time”.

People “cannot be allowed to take refuge in customs or hide behind them to deprive others of their right”, it added.

“Similarly, we are of the view that, unless otherwise prescribed in law, denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out,” said the bench.

On this ground, denying Dhaiya her equal share of her father's property would also violate her right to equality under Article 14 of the constitution vis-a-vis her five brothers, as well as the rights of her heirs vis-a-vis their cousins, the Supreme Court ruled.

“… We are of the firm view that in keeping with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, read along with the overarching effect of Article 14 of the constitution, the appellant-plaintiffs, being Dhaiya’s legal heirs, are entitled to their equal share in the property,” the court said, setting aside the judgments made by lower courts in the case over the last 17-odd years.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.