Customary Adoption Of 'Ghardamad' Must Be Strictly Proved; Property Devolves Upon Nearest Male Agnate In Absence Of Male Heir: Supreme Court

"In the absence of a ghardamad or any other male heir directly related to the land owner i.e. the male members of the family, the nearest male agnate will have the right in the property." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated July 9, 2026, has clarified the stringent requirements for proving customary inheritance and the adoption of a 'ghardamad' (resident son-in-law) among the Oraon tribe.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that those who allege a custom must prove it through long and continuous usage. The Court observed that in the absence of a validly adopted male heir, the property must necessarily devolve upon the nearest male agnate.

The dispute originated from a claim by the Plaintiff (grandson of one Sukhu Oraon) seeking ownership of ancestral land. The claim was opposed by the descendants of the Plaintiff's uncle, who alleged that one Punai had been adopted as a 'ghardamad' by another uncle, Ledura, who was childless. Under the local customs governing the Oraon community, daughters generally have no right of inheritance, and the defendants relied on a 1975 partition deed to support their claim.

The primary question before the Court was whether an uncle-in-law has the legal ability to adopt a niece’s husband as a 'ghardamad' under Oraon customary law. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had dismissed the Plaintiff's suit, were perverse or based on a misreading of customary law and evidence.

Burden Of Proof Lies On The Party Alleging A Custom

The Court began by emphasizing the foundational principles of proving a custom in a court of law. Referring to Halsbury's Laws of England and several precedents, the bench noted that for a custom to be valid, it must be immemorial, reasonable, certain, and continuous. The Court reiterated that the onus of establishing a custom lies squarely upon the parties relying on its existence, and such proof must be made by matter of record or evidence of usage.

When Supreme Court Can Interfere With Concurrent Findings Of Fact

While acknowledging that the Supreme Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact under Article 136 of the Constitution, Justice Karol noted that this is not a "cast-iron practice." The bench clarified that interference is justified if the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or if material circumstances have been ignored. The Court cited Ramachandran v. Vijayan (2024) to list scenarios where the soundness of reason in lower court judgments is compromised.

"The power under Article 136 has to be used sparingly and only when grave injustice is being caused to the parties of the dispute."

Lack Of Evidence Regarding Adoption By Uncle-In-Law

Upon examining the testimonies, the Court found significant inconsistencies in the defendants' case. It noted that while the custom of a father-in-law adopting a 'ghardamad' was generally recognized, there was no established custom allowing an uncle-in-law to adopt his niece's husband as a 'ghardamad'. The bench observed that the defendants failed to produce any evidence or authority to prove that such an adoption was permissible within the prevalent customary law.

Misdirection By Trial Court Regarding Customary Law Scholar S.C. Roy’s Findings

The Supreme Court found that the Trial Court had misdirected itself while relying on the scholarly work of S.C. Roy, "The Oraon of Chotanagpur." While the book discusses the 'ghardamad' system, it stipulates that such status is usually granted by a male owner who has no sons. The bench pointed out that the Trial Court failed to see that Punai was actually the son-in-law of Bhola, not Ledura (the uncle who allegedly adopted him), making the alleged transfer of property legally untenable.

"It is nowhere established that an uncle-in-law can adopt his niece’s husband as his ghardamad within the prevalent customary law."

Nearest Male Agnate To Succeed In Absence Of Direct Male Heir

The Court concluded that since the specific custom regarding the 'ghardamad's' eligibility to inherit from an uncle-in-law could not be proved, the general rule of the community must prevail. This rule dictates that in the absence of a direct male heir or a duly adopted 'ghardamad', the nearest male agnate (the Plaintiff in this case) inherits the property. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of the Munsif, the First Appellate Court, and the Jharkhand High Court.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff. It held that the lower courts erred by failing to require strict proof of the alleged custom and by ignoring the lack of legal authority for an uncle-in-law to perform a 'ghardamad' adoption. The ruling reaffirms that customary law cannot be assumed and must be proved through consistent and certain evidence.

Date of Decision: July 9, 2026