Tribal customs affecting property rights must be strictly proved and cannot be judicially assumed.

The petitioners purchased land in 1982 from Hira Manjhian, the daughter of the original recorded tenant, Surai Manjhi

Prior to the sale, Surai Manjhi had successfully litigated Title Suit No. 37/28-76/77 against the ancestors of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, obtaining a decree that declared his title and permanently restrained the respondents from the property

The petitioners bought the land after obtaining mandatory statutory permission under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy ("CNT") Act

In 1999, the respondents filed for restoration of the land under Section 71-A of the CNT Act, alleging illegal transfer

The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) ordered restoration, but this was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (DC) on appeal, who noted that the respondents had suppressed the previous Title Suit decree

However, the Commissioner, in revision, set aside the DC’s order and restored the land to the respondents, holding ex-parte that tribal custom prevents daughters from inheriting or alienating property

Section 71-A (restoration of land) and Section 46 (restrictions on transfer) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.

The court relied on the principle from Laxmibai v. Bhagwantbuva (2013) 4 SCC 97, which establishes that any custom varying general law must be ancient, certain, and proved by clear and unambiguous evidence

The court applied the ratio from Ram Charan v. Sukhram (2025 INSC 865), holding that courts cannot assume the existence of exclusionary tribal customs (patriarchal predispositions) without proof, and must otherwise decide rights based on justice, equity, and good conscience

The High Court observed that the Title Suit of 1978 had attained finality as no appeal was preferred, making it binding on the parties

The court found that the Commissioner erred by failing to recognize that the petitioners had complied with Section 46 of the CNT Act by obtaining formal permission for the transfer

Critically, the court noted that the Commissioner’s conclusion—that tribal daughters lack alienation rights—was reached without any evidence being led by the respondents to establish such a custom

Applying Laxmibai, the court reasoned that a custom must be established by judicial recognition or rigorous proof; it cannot be extended by analogy or assumed a priori

The court also highlighted procedural impropriety, noting the Commissioner passed the order ex-parte and labeled the previous civil decree as "fraudulent" without any clear basis or evidence

The court held that rights of inheritance and alienation among Scheduled Tribes cannot be curtailed by an assumed custom unless that custom is pleaded and proved through evidence

The revision cases (S.A.R. Revision Nos. 5/06, 6/06, and 7/06) were restored to the Commissioner's file for a fresh decision

The parties were directed to appear before the Commissioner on 20.04.2026 for a hearing to be conducted in accordance with the law and the principles of evidence regarding tribal customs