Tribal Daughter's Land Suit Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because Hindu Succession Act Excludes Scheduled Tribes: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner belongs to the Meena community, a Scheduled Tribe, and is her father's only child (paras 2, 5). By a deed of 12.03.2018 her father gifted the land to respondent No. 2 (para 5). Her civil suit to cancel the gift met an objection that she must first obtain a declaration of khatedari rights from the revenue court, so she sued for that declaration before the SDO, Chaksu (para 5). The SDO dismissed the respondents' application to reject the plaint on 24.07.2023, but the Board of Revenue allowed their revision on 09.06.2025 and rejected the plaint (paras 1-2, 5). The respondents relied on Section 2(2) (para 3).

It was undisputed that the land is ancestral and that the petitioner is her father's sole child (para 5). The Board had allowed the revision solely because a daughter belonging to a Scheduled Tribe was, in its view, barred by Section 2(2) from claiming succession rights in ancestral property (para 5). Relying on Tirth Kumar, the Court held the issue no longer res integra, noting that the earlier position discussed in Kamla Neti had been found to cause discrimination against Scheduled Tribe women (para 6). It quoted Ram Charan, which reiterated that view: where the Hindu Succession Act does not apply, custom governs and must be proved; courts should not start from an assumed custom excluding daughters; and where custom is silent, denying a daughter her share in her father's property violates her right to equality (para 6). Seeing no reason to differ, it quashed the Board's order (para 7). Under the heading ‘A Way Forward’, it recalled Kamla Neti's call for the Centre to consider amending the Act, and observed that tribal daughters are entitled to parity with male tribals in intestate succession while Section 2(2) operates as a barrier to their claims (paras 10, 16-17).