Supreme Court: Uncle-in-Law Cannot Adopt Niece's Husband as Ghar Damad Under Oraon Tribal Custom

The Supreme Court on July 9, 2026, in Bejla Oraon v. Kali Das Oraon, held that the Oraon tribal custom of 'ghar damad' (resident son-in-law) does not permit an uncle-in-law to adopt his niece's husband. The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh set aside concurrent findings of three lower courts and ruled in favour of the nearest male agnate's right to inherit.

Facts of the Case

The dispute centred on the property of one Sukhu Oraon, who had three sons: Dhungru, Ledura, and Bhoula. Ledura died childless, and Bhoula died leaving behind a daughter named Budhain. Bejla, the son of Dhungru, claimed the property as the nearest male agnate of Ledura.

The defendants contended that Budhain's husband, Punai, had been taken as a 'ghar damad' by Ledura, which under Oraon custom would entitle him to inherit Ledura's property. However, Bejla challenged this claim, arguing that the ghar damad custom requires the father or legal guardian of the bride to formally induct the son-in-law into the family, and that an uncle-in-law has no such authority.

Lower Courts' Findings Overturned

Three courts below, including the trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court, had ruled in favour of the defendants, accepting that Punai was validly adopted as a ghar damad. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that no credible evidence had been produced to demonstrate that the ghar damad custom among the Oraon tribe extended to adoption by an uncle-in-law.

The Court observed that customary law, while entitled to recognition and protection, must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. The party relying on a custom bears the burden of establishing its existence, antiquity, certainty, and reasonableness. In this case, the defendants failed to produce any witness or documentary evidence showing that the custom of ghar damad adoption by an uncle-in-law was recognised among the Oraon community.

Significance of the Ruling

This decision is significant for property disputes involving tribal communities, as it clarifies the limits of customary adoption practices. The Supreme Court reiterated that while Indian family law recognises the role of custom in determining succession rights, the custom must be proved as a matter of fact, not merely asserted.

Key Takeaways

This Supreme Court decision addresses the intersection of personal law and customary practices among scheduled tribes in India. The Oraon community, like many tribal groups, follows customary laws that permit practices such as ghar damad (where a son-in-law is adopted into the bride's family and takes up residence in her household). However, the court clarified that such customs must be established through credible evidence and cannot be extended beyond their recognized scope.

The distinction between customary adoption within a tribal community and the formal adoption governed by the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, is significant. While the personal law statute imposes specific requirements regarding who may adopt and who may be adopted, customary law operates outside these statutory constraints. The burden, however, lies on the party claiming the benefit of a custom to prove its existence, continuity, and the specific scope of the practice.

For tribal communities across India, this ruling is a reminder that customary practices, while respected by courts, must be clearly delineated. A practice that allows a father-in-law to adopt a son-in-law does not automatically extend to permit an uncle-in-law or other extended family members to do the same. Courts will examine the specific contours of the custom as practiced in the community, relying on anthropological evidence, community testimony, and historical documentation.

This case also highlights the broader tension between customary law and codified personal law in India. While the Constitution recognizes the right of tribal communities to be governed by their customs under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, courts have consistently held that customs must not be unreasonable, immoral, or opposed to public policy. The recognition of custom as a source of law requires that it be ancient, certain, reasonable, and continuously observed.

Practically, individuals in tribal communities who wish to rely on customary adoption should document the practice through community declarations, affidavits from village elders, and records of previous instances of similar adoptions within the community. This documentation can be crucial in establishing the validity of the custom before a court of law.

The case is also instructive for legal practitioners working with tribal communities on succession, adoption, and inheritance matters. Given the oral nature of many tribal customs, building a strong evidentiary record requires proactive engagement with community leaders, anthropological experts, and governmental bodies that maintain records of tribal practices. Early preparation of such evidence can make the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful claim before the courts.

The ruling also reaffirms the principle that the nearest male agnate has preferential inheritance rights in the absence of a validly adopted heir. For individuals involved in family law disputes or succession matters, this judgment offers clarity on the evidentiary standards required to establish customary practices in Indian courts.