Supreme Court rejects 'ghardamad' inheritance claim in Oraon tribal property dispute
Synopsis
The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line on customary law claims in tribal inheritance disputes: asserting a practice is not enough — you must prove it. By overturning three lower court judgments that accepted an unproved extension of the Oraon 'ghardamad' custom, the ruling sets a significant precedent for how tribal communities across India can — and cannot — use customary law to claim property rights.
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court on 9 July overturned concurrent judgments of three courts — trial court, first appellate court, and the Jharkhand High Court — in an Oraon tribal property dispute.
The court held that an uncle-in-law cannot adopt a niece's husband as a 'ghardamad' for inheritance unless such a custom is conclusively proved with evidence.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N.
Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal of plaintiff Bejla Oraon and decreed her suit.
The established Oraon custom of a ghardamad inheriting from his father-in-law was accepted, but its extension to an uncle-in-law relationship was found unproved.
The ruling reaffirms that the burden of proving a custom rests entirely with the party asserting it, and that long usage and consistent practice must be shown through evidence.
In the absence of a proved custom, the court held that the nearest male agnate is entitled to inherit the property.
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday, 9 July ruled that an uncle-in-law cannot adopt his niece's husband as a 'ghardamad' (resident son-in-law) for inheritance purposes under Oraon tribal customary law unless such a practice is conclusively proved, overturning concurrent judgments of three lower courts in a property dispute from Jharkhand. The ruling settles a significant question about the limits of customary law claims in tribal inheritance cases.
Background to the Dispute
The case centred on ancestral property belonging to an Oraon family in Jharkhand. The defendants argued that Ledura Oraon, who was childless, had accepted his niece's husband, Punai Oraon, as a ghardamad — a recognised customary arrangement whereby a resident son-in-law acquires rights over his father-in-law's property. On this basis, the defendants claimed inheritance rights over Ledura Oraon's estate.
The plaintiff, Bejla Oraon, challenged the claim, contending that no such customary practice existed between an uncle-in-law and a niece's husband. The trial court, the first appellate court, and the Jharkhand High Court had all accepted the defendants' position — a chain of concurrent findings that the Supreme Court has now set aside in its entirety.
What the Supreme Court Held
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal filed by Bejla Oraon, holding that the defendants had failed to establish the existence of the custom they relied upon. The court acknowledged that the established Oraon custom of a ghardamad inheriting from his father-in-law was proved on evidence, but found no material on record to show that this practice extended to an uncle-in-law relationship.
'It is nowhere established that an uncle-in-law can adopt his niece's husband as his ghardamad within the prevalent customary law,' the Justice Karol-led Bench observed.
The court further held that the burden of proving a custom always rests with the party asserting it, and that long usage, prevalence, and consistent practice must be demonstrated through evidence. 'He who alleges the custom must prove it. He must also prove that he is in fact governed by said custom,' the judgment stated.
Courts Below Faulted for Accepting Custom Without Evidence
The Supreme Court was particularly critical of the manner in which the lower courts handled the evidentiary question. It found that the trial court and appellate courts had accepted the existence of the extended ghardamad custom without any supporting evidence being placed on record.
The Jharkhand High Court drew additional criticism for framing a substantial question of law on the issue but failing to decide it. 'Ordinarily, once a substantial question is framed, the parties have to be heard and the issue decided accordingly,' the Bench noted, flagging a procedural lapse that compounded the error below.
Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed
Beyond the immediate dispute, the ruling reaffirms important principles governing customary law claims in Indian courts. The court held that a person relying on a customary practice must not only prove its existence but also establish that they are personally governed by it. Merely showing that the opposite position has not been clearly stated is insufficient.
'Those who allege a custom must be the one to prove it. Merely observing that the opposite to what has been alleged is not clearly stated, cannot be stated to be sufficient,' the court said.
In the absence of a validly established custom, the Supreme Court held that the nearest male agnate would be entitled to inherit the property — restoring the default rule of succession applicable to the Oraon community.
Outcome and Relief
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the trial court, the first appellate court, and the Jharkhand High Court, decreed the plaintiff Bejla Oraon's suit, and directed that all consequential reliefs should follow. The parties were left to bear their own costs. The verdict is expected to have broader implications for how tribal communities in Jharkhand and other states assert customary law claims in property litigation.
Point of View
Particularly in tribal property matters where documentation is sparse and oral tradition is easily invoked. Three courts accepted an unproved extension of the ghardamad custom — a striking failure of basic evidentiary scrutiny that the Supreme Court has now corrected. The judgment also flags a Jharkhand High Court procedural lapse — framing a substantial question of law and then not deciding it — that points to systemic gaps in how second appeals in tribal property cases are handled. For Oraon and other tribal communities in Jharkhand, the ruling cuts both ways: it protects against manufactured custom claims while also raising the evidentiary bar for legitimate customary practices that may be difficult to document formally.
NationPress
9 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the 'ghardamad' custom in Oraon tribal law?
The ghardamad custom in Oraon tribal tradition refers to a resident son-in-law arrangement under which a man who lives with his wife's family acquires inheritance rights over his father-in-law's property. The Supreme Court confirmed this specific custom is recognised under Oraon customary law, but ruled it does not automatically extend to an uncle-in-law relationship.
Why did the Supreme Court set aside the lower court judgments?
The Supreme Court found that the trial court, first appellate court, and Jharkhand High Court had all accepted the existence of an extended ghardamad custom — covering an uncle-in-law adopting a niece's husband — without any supporting evidence on record. The courts had accepted the claim without requiring the defendants to discharge their burden of proof.
Who won the case and what relief was granted?
Plaintiff Bejla Oraon won the case. The Supreme Court decreed her suit, set aside all three lower court judgments, and directed that all consequential reliefs follow. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
What legal principle does this ruling establish?
The ruling reaffirms that the burden of proving a customary practice always lies with the party asserting it. The party must prove both the existence of the custom and that they are personally governed by it, through evidence of long usage, prevalence, and consistent practice — not merely by assertion.
What happens to the property now that the custom was not proved?
With the extended ghardamad custom unproved, the Supreme Court held that the nearest male agnate is entitled to inherit the ancestral property under the default succession rules applicable to the Oraon community.
