SMT. KAITHUAMI [L] THROUGH L.RS. VS SMT. RALLIANI AND OTHERS

SMT. KAITHUAMI [L] THROUGH L.RS. VS SMT. RALLIANI AND OTHERS

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7159­7160 OF 2008

SMT. KAITHUAMI [L] THROUGH L.RS.      ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SMT. RALLIANI AND OTHERS   ...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Application   for   substitution   to   bring   on   record   legal

representatives   of   the   deceased   appellant   No.3­Thanzami   is

allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 

2. The present appeals challenge the common judgment and

order   of   the   Gauhati   High   Court,   Aizawl   Bench,   dated   7th

November,  2007,  passed   in   RSA   No.12  of   2006   with   Cross

Objection No.4 of 2006, vide which, the learned single judge of

the High Court has allowed the said Second Appeal filed by the

respondents herein and dismissed the cross­objection preferred

by the appellants herein.  

1

3. For appreciating the controversy in question, it will be

appropriate to reproduce the family chart, which is as under:

一 C 一 Dr.LalrinlianaSallo(p-1D)

2

4. P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami, through whom the parties

herein are claiming inheritance, were married to each other on

28th  January, 1927.   Ten children were born out of the said

wedlock, i.e., two sons and eight daughters.  Out of the said ten

children, one son died at the age of one and half year in the

year 1940 and one daughter died a week after her birth.  

5. Though in the judgment, the High Court has referred that

the property in dispute was purchased by P.S. Dahrawka in the

year   1972  by  virtue  of   LSC  No.  AZL  56  of   1972,  it   is  the

contention of the appellants herein that the said property was

jointly purchased by P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami in the year

1945.  P.S. Dahrawka died on 5th March, 1978.  At the time of

his death, he was survived by his wife Kaithuami, only son

Thanhnuna   and   seven   daughters.     All   the   daughters   were

married and living with their respective families.       After his

death, his youngest daughter, Thansangi Huha (appellant No.4

herein),   was   divorced   and   came   to   live   with   her   mother

Kaithuami in January, 1997.  The son Thanhnuna, who died in

the year 1996, was survived by his widow Ralliani and two

3

daughters, namely, Laldinpuii and Lalmuanpuii, who are the

respondents herein.

6. After the death of P.S. Dahrawka, the son Thanhnuna

applied for the heirship certificate in his name in respect of the

properties covered by LSC No. AZL 56 of 1972 left by his father,

i.e.,   P.S.   Dahrawka.       His   claim   was   based   on   the   Mizo

Customary Law of Inheritance, which provides that a son shall

inherit the properties of a Mizo and if the deceased is survived

by   more   than   one   son,   the   youngest   son   shall   inherit   the

property.     However,   before   his   application   for   heirship

certificate   could  be  decided,   Thanhnuna  died  on  28th  April,

1996.   After his death, his mother Kaithuami submitted an

objection on 31st May, 1996.  The Subordinate District Council

Court,   Aizawl   dismissed   the   application   of   Thanhnuna   for

heirship certificate on 11th June, 1996 due to his death.   His

widow Ralliani (respondent No.1 herein) filed an application for

restoration of application for heirship certificate filed by her

husband­deceased Thanhnuna.   The same was dismissed by

the Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl vide order dated

3

rd July, 1996.  

4

7. In   the   meantime,   mother   Kaithuami   also   filed   an

application   being   H.C.   No.1275   of   1996   claiming   heirship

certificate in respect of the properties of her husband deceased

P.S.   Dahrawka.     The   said   application   was   objected   to   by

Ralliani and her two daughters.  As such, the dispute came to

be converted into a civil suit being Civil Suit No.13 of 1996 in

the Court of Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl. Vide

judgment and order dated 7th August, 1997, the said suit came

to be decreed in favour of the mother Kaithuami and she was

declared the legal heir of her deceased husband P.S. Dahrawka

in respect of the disputed properties.  

8. The respondents herein filed an appeal being C.A. No. 12

of   1997   before   the   District   Council   Court,   Aizawl.     The

Appellate Court vide order dated 9th  July, 2001 directed that

the disputed property to be divided between four daughters of

Kaithuami, i.e., respondents therein (i.e. appellants herein) on

one hand and three appellants therein (i.e. respondents herein)

being legal heirs of Thanhnuna on the other hand.  

9. The said judgment and order of the Appellate Court was

assailed by the appellants herein before the High Court in RSA

5

No.3 of 2001. The High Court vide judgment and order dated

13th  May,   2003,   observed   that   there   was   no   meaningful

discussion on the legal entitlements of either of the parties in

the changed situation following the death of the predecessorsin­interest of both the parties, and as such, remitted the matter

to the First Appellate Court, Aizawl, i.e., District Council Court,

Aizawl for deciding the appeal afresh.  

10. On remand, the District Council Court, Aizawl disposed of

the appeal vide judgment and order dated 10th July, 2003.  As

per the said judgment, only the appellants herein were held to

be entitled to the property of deceased P.S. Dahrawka to the

exclusion of the widow and daughters of deceased Thanhnuna

(respondents herein).  Being aggrieved thereby, the respondents

herein preferred RSA No. 9 of 2003 before the High Court.  The

High Court vide judgment and order dated 9th  March, 2005

again   remanded   the   case   to   the   First   Appellate   Court,   i.e.,

District Council Court, Aizawl to decide the matter afresh upon

hearing the parties.   The District Council Court, Aizawl, on

remand, vide judgment and order dated 28th  February, 2006,

partly allowed the appeal in the following terms:

6

“1) That Respondent No. (d) namely Smt.

Thansangi Huha shall inherit.

(a) The   main   house   named   “AHIMSA”

and 

(b) the   Assam   type   building   on   the

roadside above ‘AHIMSA’ adjacent in

the   south   to   RCC   building   on   the

roadside including the land they are

standing   on   covered   by   LSC   AZL

No.54/72.

2. The   Appellant   No.3   namely   Smt.

Lalmuanpuii Huha shall inherit:­

(a) RCC   building   on   the   roadside

adjacent   in   the   north   to   the

Assam type building stated at (I)

(b) above and 

(b) Assam   type   building   on   the

roadside adjacent in the north

to   the   building   stated   at   2(a)

above   including   the   land   they

are standing on covered by LSC

AZL No.54/72.”

11. Being aggrieved, the respondents herein preferred Second

Appeal being RSA No.12 of 2006 before the High Court and the

appellants herein preferred Cross­Objection No. 4 of 2006. By the

impugned judgment and order dated 7th  November, 2007, the

High Court has allowed the said Second Appeal and dismissed

the   Cross­Objection,   thereby   holding   that   it   is   only   the

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein being legal heirs of Thanhnuna,

7

who were entitled to the rights in the property to the exclusion of

the appellants herein.  Being aggrieved, the present appeals by

way of special leave. 

12. We have heard Mr. Robin Ratnakar David, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Pragyan Pradeep

Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

13. Mr. Robin Ratnakar David, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellants, would submit that the High Court failed

to take into consideration that under the Mizo Customary Law it

is not only the rights which are inherited, but it is also the

responsibilities which are inherited.   It is submitted that the

inheritance depends upon the responsibilities discharged by a

legal   heir   towards   his/her   parents   in   their   old   age.     It   is

submitted that the deceased Thanhnuna was residing separately

and   it   was   only   the   appellant   No.4­Thansangi   Huha,   the

youngest   daughter   of   the   deceased   P.S.   Dahrawka   and

Kaithuami, who was taking care of her aged mother Kaithuami.

It is further submitted that the deceased P.S. Dahrawka and

Kaithuami had entered into an agreement dated 28th  January,

1927 and agreed that they would inherit each other’s property,

8

and as such, on the death of her husband P.S. Dahrawka, his

property was inherited by Kaithuami, and on her death, by their

daughters.  It is submitted that since Thanhnuna had not looked

after his mother or the family members, he or his legal heirs were

not entitled to any rights in the property.   As such, the High

Court   had   grossly   erred   in   allowing   the   Second   Appeal   and

dismissing the Cross­Objection.  

14. Shri Pragyan Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the respondents, on the contrary, would submit that

the High Court has rightly allowed the Second Appeal filed by the

respondents herein and dismissed the Cross­Objection filed by

the   appellants   herein.     It   is   submitted   that   the   property   in

question was not covered by the agreement dated 28th January,

1927 and is guided by the Mizo Customary Law.  It is submitted

that   the   suit   property   being   LSC   No.   AZL   56   of   1972   was

purchased only by P.S. Dahrawka and deceased Kaithuami had

no   contribution   in   the   purchase   of   the   said   property.   It   is

submitted that according to Mizo Customary Law, Thanhnuna

being the only son was the only legal heir of his late father P.S.

Dahrawka.  It is submitted that Thansangi Huha (appellant No.4

9

herein) was divorced on 20th June, 1980. She however chose not

to stay with her mother for 17 long years.  It is submitted that

she came to live with her mother Kaithuami only after the death

of Thanhnuna. It is therefore submitted that the present appeals

deserve to be dismissed.  

15. We have considered the rival submissions.  We find that the

District   Council   Court,   Aizawl,   on   second   remand,   upon

considering the factual matrix, particularly Section 109(3) and

Section   109(10)   of   the   Mizo   Customary   Law,   observed   that

though as per the Mizo Customary Law, it is the youngest son,

who would be entitled to inherit the property of his father; there

is an ample scope for distribution of the property in a fair and

reasonable manner. The District Council Court, Aizawl has found

that   in   case   of   a   rich   father,   the   property   can   be   divided

proportionately amongst the sons.  

16. The District Council Court further found that insofar as the

female members of  the  family, who are already married and

living   in   separate   households   are   concerned,   they   are   not

entitled to any share.  The District Council Court further found

that under the Mizo Customary Law, inheritance also depends

10

upon the responsibilities carried out by the legal heir.   It has

been found that till his death, Thanhnuna was looking after his

mother.   However, after his death, Thansangi Huha (appellant

No.4 herein) came back to her original home to look after her

aged mother Kaithuami.  It was found that the provision of Mizo

Customary Law relating to ‘divorced’ (Hringkir) in the matter of

inheritance would apply to her and her right to inheritance of

her father’s properties subsists by virtue of her being divorced

(Hringkir) and coming back to the original family for looking after

the mother.   The District Council Court found that Thansangi

Huha looked after her mother till her death and also discharged

the   responsibility   of   erecting   ceremonial   tombstone   for   her

mother.         The District Council Court also found that after

exclusion   of   the   daughters   of   deceased   P.S.   Dahrawka   and

Kaithuami, who were married and living in separate households

and one daughter of Thanhnuna, i.e., Laldinpuii, who was also

married into a different clan, the contest was between Thansangi

Huha (appellant No.4 herein), the youngest daughter of deceased

P.S. Dahrawka and Kaithuami, who after divorce came back to

her house and was looking after her mother on one hand and

11

Lalmuanpuii   (respondent   No.3   herein),   the   other  daughter   of

deceased Thanhnuna.  

17. The   District   Council   Court   found   that   since   Thansangi

Huha (appellant No.4 herein) had discharged her responsibility

of looking after her mother till her death and was occupying the

main bed and reassuming her father’s clan title ‘Hahu’, her right

to inherit her father’s properties could not be defeated. It further

found that on the other hand Lalmuanpuii (respondent No.3

herein), though a female, was grand­daughter from the male

lineal descent of deceased P.S. Dahrawka.  She was unmarried

and purely a ‘Hahu’ in the line of P.S. Dahrawka.  It found that

her right to inheritance in the instant dispute was safeguarded

by the Customary Law in the absence of descendants having a

better right for the purpose.  The District Council Court therefore

found   that   taking   into   consideration   the   principle   of   Mizo

Customary Law of Inheritance and the spirit of equity, which is

paramount to Mizo Customary Law, it was appropriate that the

property be divided between Thansangi Huha (appellant No.4

herein) and Lalmuanpuii (respondent No.3 herein).

12

18. The Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench, speaking through

Madan   B.   Lokur,   C.J.   (as   he   then   was),   in   the   case   of

Thansiami vs. Lalruatkima and ors.1

 has also held that the

inheritance depends upon the question as to whether a person

supports the deceased in his old age or not.   It has been held

that even if a natural heir does not support his parents, he

would not be entitled to inheritance.   It has further been held

that even if there is a natural heir, a person who supports the

person   until   his   death   could   inherit   the   properties   of   that

person.  

19. We   therefore   find   that   the   view   taken   by   the   District

Council   Court,   Aizawl,   on   second   remand,   is   based   on   the

consideration of equity and the responsibility of a legal heir to

look   after   the   elders   in   the   family.     The   said   view   is   also

supported by the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, Aizawl

Bench in the case of  Thansiami   vs.   Lalruatkima   and   ors.

(supra).  We respectfully agree with the said view.  

20. We are therefore of the considered view that the High Court

was not justified in reversing the well­reasoned and equitable

1 (2012) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 309

13

judgment and order passed by the District Council Court dated

28th February, 2006 in C.A. No.12 of 1997.

21. In the result, we pass the following order:

A. The appeals are allowed.

B. The judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court,

Aizawl Bench dated 7th November, 2007 in RSA No.12 of

2006 and Cross Objection No.4 of 2006, is quashed and

set aside.  

C. The judgment and order of the District Council Court,

Aizawl dated 28th February, 2006 in C.A. No.12 of 1997,

is affirmed.  

22. Pending   application(s),   if   any,   shall   stand   disposed   of.

There shall be no order as to costs. 

…..….......................J.

[L. NAGESWARA RAO]

…….........................J.       

[B.R. GAVAI]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 26, 2022.

14