Person Relying on Custom Must Strictly Prove Its Existence; Uncle-in-Law Cannot Confer Ghardamad Rights Without Proof of Custom
Case Name: Bejla Oraon (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Kali Das Oraon & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 09 July 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 672
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Held: The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving a customary practice lies on the party asserting it, and such custom must be established through clear and convincing evidence showing its continuous, certain and reasonable existence. The Court further held that although the Oraon custom recognising a ghardamad (resident son-in-law) was proved, there was no evidence establishing a custom permitting an uncle-in-law to adopt his niece’s husband as a ghardamad. Consequently, the plaintiff, being the nearest male agnate, was held entitled to inherit the disputed property.
Summary: The appeal arose from a dispute relating to succession of ancestral property governed by the customary law of the Oraon tribe in Jharkhand. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the property on the ground that after the deaths of his uncles, who died without male heirs, he became the nearest male agnate entitled to inherit the estate. The defendants resisted the claim by contending that one of the deceased had accepted the husband of his niece as a ghardamad (resident son-in-law), who consequently acquired inheritance rights under the prevailing tribal custom. They also relied upon a deed executed in favour of the defendants to support their claim.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the First Appellate Court as well as the Jharkhand High Court affirmed the decision by accepting the defendants’ plea regarding the ghardamad custom. Before the Supreme Court, the plaintiff argued that the defendants had failed to prove the alleged custom enabling an uncle-in-law to confer inheritance rights upon his niece’s husband. The defendants, on the other hand, maintained that the customary practice of recognising a ghardamad had been duly established and justified their claim over the property.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court reiterated that a custom cannot be presumed merely because no contrary custom has been shown. The Court observed that every person relying upon a customary right must establish its existence, scope and applicability through reliable evidence. While the evidence sufficiently proved the existence of a custom recognising inheritance rights of a ghardamad in relation to his father-in-law, there was no evidence whatsoever to establish a similar custom authorising an uncle-in-law to induct his niece’s husband as a ghardamad. The Court further found that the defendants’ evidence regarding inheritance rights of daughters and succession under Oraon custom was inconsistent and contradictory, whereas the plaintiff’s evidence remained consistent and credible.
The Supreme Court also observed that the document relied upon by the defendants, whether treated as a lease deed or a partition deed, did not confer title upon them. It held that a lease does not create ownership and a partition can take place only between persons having an existing share in the property. Since the defendants failed to establish any valid customary right in their favour, the plaintiff, being the nearest male agnate under the recognised customary law, was held entitled to succeed to the property.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court and the Jharkhand High Court, and decreed the plaintiff’s suit. The Court held that the defendants had failed to prove the alleged custom conferring inheritance rights upon the ghardamad in the facts of the case and declared the plaintiff, being the nearest male agnate, entitled to the disputed property. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.