Property Partition - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC. A review cannot re-appreciate evidence or reverse findings as an appeal would. The order under review did not correct a patent error but substituted a view, which is impermissible in review proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a partition suit (O.S. No. 192 of 2000) filed by Subramani against his father, Munusamy Naidu, concerning ancestral properties. An ex-parte preliminary decree was passed in 2003, dividing the property into two equal shares. The Appellant, Malleeswari, who is the daughter of Munusamy Naidu, was not initially impleaded in this suit. Subsequent to the decree, her father executed a sale deed in favor of the first respo...

The Supreme Court ruled that in the absence of any established custom or law governing inheritance for Scheduled Tribes, the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience under Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 must apply. The Court held that denying tribal women equal inheritance rights violates Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution, as discrimination based on gender lacks a rational nexus. The judgment overruled the lower courts’ dismissal of the claim, affirming that legal heirs of tribal women are entitled to an equal share in ancestral property unless a contrary custom is proven. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over the inheritance rights of a tribal woman, Dhaiya, belonging to the Gond Scheduled Tribe in Chhattisgarh. The appellants,...