RI Sawiluaia vs Smti Ngurbiakveli

K. Lahiri, J.—The forensic battle is between the father-in-law and his daughter-in-law. It in "a new comet" in the Union Territory of Mizoram.

Mrs. Naurbiakveli, the opposite party married Chalthanthuama on 27.11.76 and lived happily until her husband died on 15.2.80. Her husband was an Assistant Jailor. Luckily the young widow could obtain a job in a Primary School at Lunglei and had to leave her father-in-law to eke out her livelihood. Her husband left G.P. Fund, Family Pension and D.C.R. Gratuity. The present Petitioner, her father-in-law pounced on it so deny his own daughter-in-law the fund left by her husband. He filed a caw in the court of the Subordinate District Council Court and obtained an order in his favour. He obtained "The Heir ship Certificate" in respect of the property left by the husband of Ngurbiakveli, The decision of the Subordinate District Council Court deprived the poor widow who bad lost her husband even "the fund" left by him. Being so deprived the opposite party preferred an appeal to the District Council Court and obtained a verdict in her favour.

The District Council Court is comprised of one President and a Judicial Officer. This is the highest Court to decide cases between the Mizos. The learned members are not only especially conversant with local conditions but have scholarly knowledge about "The Mizo Custom and Customary Laws". The court system is governed by simple process based on justice, equity and good conscience. Technicalities of laws are out of bound in Mizoram. The procedure enables the court to dispose quick but deliberate justice. The Appellant has preferred an appeal under Clause 3 of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 1954.

The first contention is that the Respondent is not entitled to the fund as she had deserted her father-in-law. I have no manner of doubt that the opposite patty never deserted her father-in-law. The poor widow, to eke out her livelihood, took an appointment in the Primary School and went to Lunglei. This is no desertion as contemplated under any law for the time being in force. "Desertion", means the act by which a person abandons and forsakes, without any justification. The opposite party never abandoned or left her father-in-law without justification. She bad to earn her livelihood, so she went to Lunglei. Her going did in no manner affect the family of the father-in-law rather, they were relieved of the responsibilities of her maintenance. Therefore, I conclude that the finding of the learned District Council Court that the opposite party never deserted is valid, legal and in accordance with justice, equity and good conscience.

The second contention is that the Subordinate District Council Court was justified in holding ;bat a woman cannot inherit any property under the Mizo Customary Law the order of the District Council Court is bad as it granted Heir ship Certificate to the Respondent in breach of the Customary Laws. Let me examine the question.

Under the Mizo Customary Law, "Intuitblar" is a social wrong. "Intuithlar" means, to severe family relationship permanently, that is to cut off totally the relationship between two relatives. Under such circumstances the parties cannot inherit the property left by either of the parties. "Intuithlar is an act of snapping up of the relationship and it must be set down in writing. In the instant case there is no such writing nor is there any material that the opposite party ever snapped family relationship with her husband and/or her father-in-law. She cannot, therefore, be disinherited from the property left by her husband. In the result, the sole ground which found favour with the Subordinate District Council Court and strenuously urged by learned Counsel for the Appellant fails.

Now let me consider whether the Respondent is entitled to the relief granted by the District Council Court. A Mizo can always execute a will or appoint his heir or nominate a person who will inherit or succeed him under the Mizo District (Inheritance of Properties) Act, 1956. There is no bar to nominate a wife to inherit the property. "The Act" is a progressive measure to permit the owner of a property to appoint or nominate his heir or successor, including a woman who may not inherit some properties under the Mizo Customary Laws. If we note the Mizo Customary Law, which is very progressive and well equipped we find that under Zawn Chawp Rokhawm system a Mizo may appoint or nominate any person including a woman to inherit his property, although ordinarily women do not inherit.

The District Council Court has held that the deceased was a Govt. servant, and had G.P. Fund, Family Pension Fund and D.C.R. Gratuity and these could be inherited by the opposite party in view of the provisions contained in the Liberalised Pension Rules and the Civil Services Pension Regulation. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not place before me anything to show that the District Council Court was wrong on any count whatsoever. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner hat emphasised that ordinarily a woman is not entitled to inherit property and points to The Mizo Customary Law compiled by the District Council, The relevant portion of Rule 109(10) is extracted below:

Ordinarily woman cannot inherit propertied; however if a person has daughter but no son, his daughters may inherit his properties. In the case of more than one daughter the youngest daughter will be given first preference as in the case of sons.

[Emphasis added]

The Mizos have a developed customs, dogmas, tenets and the rules of life are rich, dynamic and forward looking. Cautiously have they prescribed that ordinarily a woman should not inherit the properties left by a male. But if a male person leaves behind more than one daughter the youngest daughter has been given the preferment to heir ship. Similarly, in cafe of sons the youngest has been given the primacy. Insofar as women are concerned they are never deprived. The word ''ordinarily'' has been deliberately and prudently incorporated and the raison deter is obvious. Normally, they do not inherit but under certain contingencies they do inherit. Even under "PA MI RO KHAWM" system of inheritance a widow is entitled to a share of the ancestral property of her husband if he dies without any issue. Of course, the share in such property can be granted by the court alone. The prohibition (partial) against woman inheriting ancestral property was introduced as the men-folk mostly used to leave behind agricultural properly; the fragmentation of such property was advised against by the society at all relevant times, us women-folk were not suited to the avocation.

I have alluded that a woman may be appointed or nominated to Inherit under "ZAWN CHAWP ROKHAWM" system of inheritance recognised under the Customary Law. Therefore, testamentary disposition of property is permissible under the Mizo Customary Law and disposition in favour of a woman is not prohibited. I have also shown how The Mizo District (Inheritance of Properties) Act, 1956, recognize such disposition. Therefore, the findings reached by the District Council Court are unassailable.

10 A. These apart, I note that the opposite party is entitled to obtain the fund by the operation of the relevant laws. She was nominated by her husband to secure the fund. As a nominee she is entitled to get the fund by virtue of Provident Fund Act and the Civil Services Provident Fund Regulation.

I am, therefore, constrained to hold that, the District Council Court has rightly held that the opposite party is entitled to the funds left by her deceased husband. There is no impediment in any of customary law or usage, which stands to her way to get the fund. Therefore, I uphold the judgment and order of the District Council Court.

In the result toe petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 300/- payable by the Petitioner to the opposite party.