C. Kapthianga vs Thangsange and Others

T.S. Misra, C.J.—This appeal raises an interesting question pertaining to inheritance by a person of Mizo Tribe who is not the natural heir of the deceased. The claimant based his claim on customary law.

Sata married Saichhingi of Zotlang, who had already three sons, namely, Puisuanga, Hmelmawia and Thansanga from her previous husband. Saichhingi married Sata on the condition that her aforesaid three son should be taken in adoption. The condition was accepted by Sata and, thus the said three sons came to be adopted by him. Later on, Puisuanga and Hmelmawia were married. They got themselves separated. Sata bought a shop at Lunglei and started carrying on business therein leaving behind his youngest son at Zotlang. Thangsanga and his family joined his parents at Lunglel, Saichhingi died in 1957 and Sata expired on 29th March, 1965, The question of inheritance of the property then arose. The present appellant claimed heirship on the ground that he had been supporting Sata from 1960 till 29th March,1965. The trial Court accepted the claim of the present Appellant. Aggrieved by the decision Thangsanga preferred an appeal before the President, District Council Court, Aigwal, who allowed the appeal in part, set aside the order of the trial Court and ordered that the shop house of late Sata at Lunglel shall be equally divided and that Thangsanga will have the northern portion of the shop house, along with the land attached thereto; whereas Kapthianga shall have the southern portion thereof along with the land attached thereto as well as the attached kitchen. Kapthianga not satisfied with the appellate order, has preferred the instant appeal.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted at the outset that in view of the customary law governing the parties, Kapthianga alone is entitled to succeed to the property of late Sata. In support of his contention, he referred us to a book captioned ''The Mizo Customany Laws in English'' written by the Secretary, Mizo District Council as also to another book captioned ''A Monograph on Lushai Customs and Ceremonies'' by N.E. Parry, I.C.S. We have gone through the relevant portions of both the books.

It is not in dispute that Sata did not have any natural heir. The present Appellant''s father as also Respondent No. 1 and Hmelmawia were the real brothers; they had been adopted by Sata, while he entered into marital tie with Saichhingi. It seems that adoption of a person for the purpose of inheritance was recognised under the Mizo Customary Law under certain conditions. Any person who has no issue or who has no close relative to maintain him, may adopt any person to inherit his properties, and if the person so adopted looks after the person till his death he may succeed him. (See para 109 at pages 28 and 29 of the Mizo Customary in English). Parry also speaks like wise in his aforesaid celebrated book. Similarly, with regard to inheritance, there was a custom known as ''Chawmhlum Rokhawm'' The custom, as pointed out in the Mizo Customary Laws in English was as follows:

Chawinhluin Rockhawm: Inheritance of a person, who was supported till death by the person who supported him. A person who has no natural heir and who is unable to support himself may invite one as his supporter and heir. The person so taken in will inherit his properties if he supported till his death, For example, ''A''s close relative refuses to support ''A'' and if ''B'' to stay at ''A''s house and supports him, then ''B'' will inherit ''A''s properties. ''B'' will pay the balance of the marriage price of ''A''s wife if any, and he will also support ''A''s wife whether she is residing with him or in a separate house.

In the same strain Parry also writes in his book while referring to the particular custom:

Chawmhlum Rokhawm: A man who is unable to do any work very often gets some one to come and live in his house and support him, if his relations are unable to support him or refuse to do so. A man who goes and lives in another''s house and supports him, may inherit the estate of the man he has supported. Thus, A gets B to come and live in his house and support him as his own relatives are unable to do so, When A dies B will inherit his estate. If A''s marriage price is in arrears B will have to pay it up. If A leaves a widow, B will have to support her either in his own or in a separate house. Cases like this are known as Chamhlum rokbawm.

It would be seen that the Mizo Customary Law emphasises the ''support'' aspect while determining the question of inheritance. The same aspect is kept in view while permitting a Mizo person to adopt a person for the purpose of his inheritance. A Mizo could adopt a child to succeed him if he has no to support him and he wants someone to support him till his death. The person so adopted has to look after the adoptive father if he wants to succeed to his properties. While granting relief under the custom of ''Chawmhlum Rokhawm'' one has to we whether the claimant had really supported the deceased till his death. If he had not supported the deceased till his death, his claim over others shall have no preference, Normally, a Mizo''s natural heirs are his sons and if he has more than one son, the youngest son shall be entitled to inherit his property (vide PA RO KHAWM, para 3 at page 30 of the Mizo Customary Laws in English). But the youngest son also will not inherit all the properties if he has not supported the aged parents till death. This rule applies to natural heirs. Id the case at hand, Sata died without leaving any natural heir. ''PA RO KHAWM'' is therefore, not applicable rather ''CHAWMHLUM ROKHAWM'' custom is attracted which points put that 4 person who has supported the deceased till his death would be entitled to inherit his properties. From the judgment of the appellate Court below it stands out that the present Appellant had supported in the later Days of his life from 1960 to 1965. He also erected tombstone of Sata. The Respondent obviously did not support Sata till his death. He had already been given certain properties by Sata while he was alive. The Appellant being the sole supporter of late Sata was, therefore, in view of the Customary Law applicable to the parties, entitled to inherit the properties in question. The trial Court was right in granting the relief claimed for by the Appellant. The appellate Court fell in error in modifying the order of the trial Court and allowing one-half share to the Respondent in the said property.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the appellate Court is set aside and the order of the trial Court is restored. Since none appeared to contest the appeal, we make no order as to costs.