Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act,1956

Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that denying daughters of Scheduled Tribe communities equal rights in ancestral property is unjustified and urged the Central Government to amend Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 to ensure gender equality among tribals. 

• The Rajasthan High Court held this in the matter of Manni Devi v. Rama Devi & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Manni Devi v. Rama Devi & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• Manni Devi was the sole child of her father Panchu, having no brothers. Her father executed a gift deed dated 12th March 2018 in favour of respondent No. 2 regarding ancestral land. 
• The petitioner challenged the validity of the gift deed by filing a civil suit before the Additional District Judge No. 11, Jaipur Metro-I.  
• The respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the suit on technical grounds, arguing that without a prior declaration of khatedari rights, the civil suit for cancellation of the gift deed was not maintainable. 
• The civil court allowed the respondent's application vide order dated 27th March 2023, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek declaration of her khatedari rights from the competent Revenue Court. 
• Following the civil court's direction, the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration of her rights in the ancestral property before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Chaksu. 
• During the pendency of the suit, the respondents submitted an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.  
• They relied on Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, contending that the provisions of the Act do not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless specifically notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. 
• The SDO rejected the respondent's application vide order dated 24th July 2023, allowing the petitioner's suit to proceed. 
• Aggrieved by the SDO's order, the respondents filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 
• The Board of Revenue allowed the revision petition vide order dated 09th June 2025, holding that since the petitioner belonged to a Scheduled Tribe (Meena community) and had no brothers, she possessed no right of succession in the ancestral property. Consequently, the Board allowed the respondent's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the petitioner's plaint. 
• The central controversy pertained to whether daughters belonging to Scheduled Tribe communities are entitled to equal inheritance rights in their father's ancestral property, particularly in light of the exclusionary provision under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 operates as a "barrier in the way of female tribal asserting their rights in their father's property" and creates unjustified discrimination against daughters of Scheduled Tribe communities. 
• The Court noted that when daughters belonging to non-Scheduled Tribe communities are entitled to equal share in their father's property, denying the same right to daughters of Scheduled Tribe communities violates Article 15 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits discrimination based on caste. 
• The Court extensively relied on recent Supreme Court decisions in Kamla Neti (Dead) v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2023), Tirth Kumar v. Dadu Ram (2024), and Ram Charan v. Sukhram (2025), which held that denying female heirs rights in property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination. 
• The Court observed that "Female Tribal is entitled to parity with Male Tribal in the matters of intestate succession" and that denying equal rights to tribal daughters "even after more than seven decades of independence, is manifestly unjustified." 
• The Court observed that Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution guarantee fundamental rights of equality, personal liberty, and non-discrimination, which are being infringed by the current legal framework. 
• The Court noted the global rise in women empowerment movements and emphasized that the 21st century discourse on gender equality has transcended from "mere rhetoric to a dynamic movement" with constitutional backing. 
• The Court observed that while Section 2(2) was enacted with certain intentions, its application in denying succession rights to tribal women contradicts the constitutional mandate of equality and non-discrimination. 
• The Court held that it is "right and high time" for the Union Government to revisit Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and consider amendments to safeguard and promote the rights of female members of the Scheduled Tribe community. 

What is Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Article 366(25) of the Indian Constitution? 

• Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 completely excludes all members of Scheduled Tribes from the application of the entire Act, creating a blanket prohibition on inheritance rights. 
• Article 366(25) of the Indian Constitution provides the official definition of "Scheduled Tribes" as specific tribes, tribal communities, or groups within such communities that are formally recognized under Article 342. 
• The Hindu Succession Act provision clearly states that the Act shall not apply to any member of a Scheduled Tribe as defined under Article 366(25) of the Constitution, directly linking both provisions. 
• Only the Central Government has the exclusive power to make the Hindu Succession Act applicable to Scheduled Tribe members through an official notification in the Official Gazette. 
• Tribal status under Article 366(25) is not automatic but requires formal constitutional recognition through the official procedure established under Article 342, which empowers the President to notify Scheduled Tribes. 
• Without specific government notification, the Hindu Succession Act remains entirely inapplicable to all tribal communities, preventing them from claiming inheritance rights available to non-tribal citizens. 
• The exclusion under Section 2(2) applies to all tribal members regardless of whether they follow Hindu customs or have adopted Hindu practices in their daily lives. 
• Article 366(25) ensures comprehensive coverage by including entire tribes, tribal communities, and specific parts or groups within larger tribal communities to prevent exclusion due to internal divisions. 
• This constitutional framework creates a complete legal barrier that denies tribal women equal inheritance rights, as only communities formally notified under Article 342 are subject to this exclusionary provision. 
• The integration of Section 2(2) with Article 366(25) establishes that the exclusion from inheritance rights applies specifically to all communities officially recognised as Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution, operating as an absolute prohibition until the Central Government exercises its discretionary power to include them.