/2022 INSC 0321/
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   7 th
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
28 th
  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 5 th
  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   28 th
  April,
1996.     After   his   death,   his   mother   Kaithuami   submitted   an
objection on 31 st
  May, 1996.   The Subordinate District Council
Court,   Aizawl   dismissed   the   application   of   Thanhnuna   for
heirship   certificate   on   11 th
  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 7 th
 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   9 th
  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
13 th
  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   predecessors­
in­interest 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 10 th
  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   9 th
  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   28 th
  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   7 th
  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   28 th
  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   28 th
  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 20 th
  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
28 th
 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 7 th
 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 28 th
 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