The Supreme Court examined whether a ghardamad, or resident son-in-law, could claim inheritance rights in the property of his wife’s uncle under the customary law governing the Oraon/Udaon community. In Bejla Oraon v. Kali Das Oraon & Ors. (2026), the Court held that a custom must be clearly established by the party relying upon it and cannot be presumed or extended beyond its proved scope. Although the custom permitting a ghardamad to acquire rights in the property of his father-in-law was recognised, the defendants failed to prove any custom allowing an uncle-in-law to accept his niece’s husband as ghardamad and confer property rights upon him.
Citation: Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 23458 of 2024
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date of Judgment: 9 July 2026
Facts
The dispute had its origin in the family property of Sukhu Oraon. Sukhu had three sons, namely Dhungru, Ledura and Bhoula. The plaintiff, who was also named Sukhu Oraon, came from the branch of Dhungru. Ledura died without leaving any children. Bhoula, on the other hand, had daughters, including Budhain, who was married to Punai Oraon.
The plaintiff asserted that after the deaths in the family, the property should devolve upon him as the nearest surviving male agnate. His claim was founded on the customary law of the Oraon/Udaon community. According to him, under the said custom, daughters did not inherit landed property. On that basis, Budhain could not claim any share in the land, and Punai could not derive any right merely because he was her husband.
The defendants disputed the plaintiff’s claim. They pleaded that since Ledura had no child of his own, he had taken Punai into the family as his ghardamad, or resident son-in-law. Their case was that, under the applicable community custom, a ghardamad could acquire rights in the property of the person who accepted him in that capacity. To strengthen their claim, they also relied upon a deed dated 27 February 1975, which was referred to in the proceedings sometimes as a lease deed and sometimes as a partition deed.
The Trial Court rejected the plaintiff’s suit. The First Appellate Court agreed with the Trial Court and affirmed the dismissal. The High Court of Jharkhand also refused to interfere, treating the findings of the courts below as concurrent. Aggrieved by this, the legal heirs of the plaintiff carried the matter to the Supreme Court.
The dispute had its origin in the family property of Sukhu Oraon. Sukhu had three sons, namely Dhungru, Ledura and Bhoula. The plaintiff, who was also named Sukhu Oraon, came from the branch of Dhungru. Ledura died without leaving any children. Bhoula, on the other hand, had daughters, including Budhain, who was married to Punai Oraon.
The plaintiff asserted that after the deaths in the family, the property should devolve upon him as the nearest surviving male agnate. His claim was founded on the customary law of the Oraon/Udaon community. According to him, under the said custom, daughters did not inherit landed property. On that basis, Budhain could not claim any share in the land, and Punai could not derive any right merely because he was her husband.
The defendants disputed the plaintiff’s claim. They pleaded that since Ledura had no child of his own, he had taken Punai into the family as his ghardamad, or resident son-in-law. Their case was that, under the applicable community custom, a ghardamad could acquire rights in the property of the person who accepted him in that capacity. To strengthen their claim, they also relied upon a deed dated 27 February 1975, which was referred to in the proceedings sometimes as a lease deed and sometimes as a partition deed.
The Trial Court rejected the plaintiff’s suit. The First Appellate Court agreed with the Trial Court and affirmed the dismissal. The High Court of Jharkhand also refused to interfere, treating the findings of the courts below as concurrent. Aggrieved by this, the legal heirs of the plaintiff carried the matter to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the defendants proved the custom that Punai could inherit Ledura’s property as a ghardamad.
- Whether daughters had any right or share in landed property under the custom governing the parties.
- Whether there had been a valid partition among the family branches.
- Whether the deed relied upon by the defendants conferred any title.
- Whether the Supreme Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Supreme Court Analysis
I) Partition
The Supreme Court found that no partition among the branches of Sukhu Oraon’s family was proved. Most witnesses stated that no partition had taken place. The defence evidence on this point was inconsistent and insufficient.
The Court held that the claim that Ledura had written or given land to Budhain was not properly proved. The defendants failed to show the source of Ledura’s authority, the extent of land allegedly given, or whether such a transfer was permitted by custom.
II) Daughters’ Rights
The Court held that the evidence supported the plaintiff’s case that daughters did not get any right or share in landed property under the proved custom.
The plaintiff’s witnesses were consistent on this point. They stated that women and daughters had no title in landed property and could at best claim maintenance in certain situations.
The defence witnesses, on the other hand, gave contradictory statements. Some suggested that daughters could get property through a written document, while others accepted that daughters did not inherit. Because of these inconsistencies, the Court accepted the plaintiff’s version.
III) Ghardamad Custom
The Supreme Court accepted that the custom of ghardamad existed to a limited extent. A man without a son could bring a son-in-law into his house as ghardamad, and such person could acquire certain rights in the property of his father-in-law.
However, the Court held that this custom could not be extended beyond what was proved. Punai was Budhain’s husband. Budhain was the daughter of Bhoula. Therefore, Punai could possibly claim a relationship as son-in-law of Bhoula. The defendants, however, claimed that Ledura, Budhain’s uncle, had accepted Punai as ghardamad.
The Court held that no custom was proved under which an uncle-in-law could adopt or accept his niece’s husband as ghardamad and confer property rights upon him.
IV) Deed
The deed relied upon by the defendants was described inconsistently as a lease deed or a partition deed. The Supreme Court held that the result would be the same in either case. If it were a lease deed, it did not confer ownership. If it were a partition deed, it could operate only between persons who already had shares in the property.
Since Budhain had no proved share and Punai had no valid title through Ledura, the document could not defeat the plaintiff’s claim.
Custom Cannot Be Presumed or Extended by Assumption
The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court misdirected itself while relying on S.C. Roy’s work on the Oraon community. The source recognised ghardamad inheritance in specific circumstances, mainly where a son-in-law was brought into the house by the last male owner or his widow. It did not establish that an uncle-in-law could confer such status on his niece’s husband.
The High Court also erred. It framed the issue of whether Ledura could adopt Punai as ghardamad, but did not properly answer it. The Supreme Court held that once a substantial question of law is framed, the High Court must decide it.
The High Court further erred in reasoning that since no bar against adoption by an uncle-in-law was shown, the defendants’ case could be accepted. The Supreme Court clarified that the burden was on the defendants to prove the custom, not on the plaintiff to disprove it.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that customary law must be strictly proved before it can affect property rights. The existence of one custom cannot be used to create or presume another. Although the custom of ghardamad was accepted to the extent that a son-in-law may acquire rights in the property of his father-in-law, the defendants failed to prove any custom allowing an uncle-in-law to confer similar rights upon his niece’s husband.
Since daughters had no inheritance rights under the proved custom and Punai’s claim as ghardamad of Ledura was not established, the plaintiff succeeded as the nearest male agnate.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams