Facts
The dispute concerned ancestral property of an Oraon family governed by customary law. The plaintiff claimed that, being the nearest male agnate, he alone inherited the property after the deaths of his uncles. The defendants asserted that one uncle, Ledura Oraon, had taken Punai Oraon as his ghardamad (resident son-in-law), entitling him to inherit the property. The Trial Court, First Appellate Court and the High Court accepted the defendants' case and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues Framed
(a) Whether the alleged custom permitting an uncle-in-law to adopt a ghardamad and confer inheritance rights was proved.
(b) Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below warranted interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Court's Reasoning
(a) The Court reiterated the settled principles governing proof of custom. The party asserting a custom must establish its existence, long and continuous usage, certainty and reasonableness. Mere assertion is insufficient. The burden lies on the person relying upon the custom.
(b) The evidence established only the customary rule that a ghardamad may acquire rights in the property of his father-in-law. However, there was no evidence of any recognised custom permitting an uncle-in-law to adopt his niece's husband as a ghardamad with inheritance rights.
(c) Referring to S.C. Roy's work on Oraon customary law, the Court observed that where there is no valid ghardamad or male heir, the property devolves upon the nearest male agnate. The courts below misdirected themselves by treating the alleged custom as established without proof.
(d) Although interference with concurrent findings is ordinarily limited, such findings may be disturbed where they are based on an incorrect application of law or on material evidence that does not establish the essential legal requirement. The High Court framed the substantial question regarding adoption by an uncle-in-law but failed to answer it.
Held
The appeal was allowed. The judgments of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and High Court were set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was decreed. Parties were left to bear their own costs.
Ratio
Those who allege a custom must prove it. In the absence of proof that Oraon customary law recognises adoption of a ghardamad by an uncle-in-law, inheritance cannot be founded upon such an alleged custom, and the property devolves upon the nearest male agnate.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 672
Decided on: 09 July 2026
Case Title: Bejla Oraon v. Kali Das Oraon & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.