A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Saraswathi Ammal v. Jagadambal and Another, AIR 1953 SC 193, addressed a significant issue of customary Hindu succession in the context of dasis (devadasis/dancing girls) in South India. The principal question was whether a dasi daughter—one initiated into her mother’s traditional occupation of ritualistic temple dancing and linked to prostitution—would have precedence in inheritance over her married sisters under Hindu custom. The trial court favored the defendant’s claim, upholding that such a custom existed. However, the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court overturned this, holding that the evidence presented failed to substantiate the existence of a binding, certain, and uniform custom conferring exclusive inheritance rights on dasi daughters. The Court stressed that such customs must be proven strictly, not assumed or extrapolated by analogy. In absence of an established custom, the Court applied the general Hindu rule of propinquity based on justice, equity, and good conscience, holding all daughters equally entitled. Furthermore, the Court rejected the claim that dasi daughters could be equated with virginal daughters under Hindu law, since they were not “maidens” in the traditional legal sense. This decision has landmark significance in the domain of customary law, women’s rights, and the evolution of succession jurisprudence under Hindu law.

Keywords: Hindu Succession, Dasi Custom, Devadasis, Hindu Law of Propinquity, Customary Law, Inheritance, South India, Dancing Girls, Supreme Court, Justice Equity and Good Conscience.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Saraswathi Ammal v. Jagadambal and Another

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1952

iii) Judgement Date: 27 February 1953

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Mehr Chand Mahajan and S. R. Das, JJ.

vi) Author: Mehr Chand Mahajan, J.

vii) Citation: AIR 1953 SC 193; [1953] SCR 939

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 13, Hindu Law of Inheritance Act (not directly applicable but relevant by analogy)

• Principles of Hindu Mitakshara Law (on succession and propinquity)

• Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Article 133 of the Constitution of India (grant of leave to appeal to Supreme Court)

ix) Judgments Overruled: None explicitly overruled, but decisions such as Subbaratna Mudali v. Balakrishna Naidu, 33 MLJ 207, were critically examined.

x) Case is Related to: Hindu Succession Law, Customary Law, Women’s Rights, Family Law, Cultural and Social Practices

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case emerged from a familial dispute among three daughters of a deceased dasi (Thangathammal) from Tanjore District, Madras State. The peculiarities stem from the intersection of customary inheritance rules practiced in the dasi community and the general Hindu law principles. The core question was whether a daughter who continued the devadasi tradition would inherit to the exclusion of her married sisters based on custom. With the institution of devadasis having ritualistic and often stigmatized social dimensions, the Court had to grapple with the clash between cultural practice and codified personal laws. The High Court reversed the lower court’s endorsement of the custom, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

One Thangathammal, a temple-attached dasi, died intestate in 1943, leaving behind three daughters—Saraswathi (the appellant), Jagadambal (plaintiff/respondent), and Meenambal (second defendant/supporter of the appellant). The properties were allegedly stridhanam in nature, meaning they belonged to the deceased exclusively. The plaintiff claimed equal share, asserting there was no binding custom that granted dasi daughters exclusive succession rights. Saraswathi, however, claimed sole inheritance, citing an existing custom among South Indian dasis where only the dasi daughter inherited, excluding married daughters. The Subordinate Judge accepted this claim, but the High Court reversed it, citing lack of concrete proof of such a custom.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether a customary rule existed in South India among the dasi community under which a dasi daughter exclusively inherited her mother’s property, excluding married daughters.

ii) Whether a dasi daughter could be treated as a maiden under Hindu Mitakshara law to claim preferential rights in inheritance over her married sisters.

iii) Whether in absence of proven custom, the general rule of propinquity under Hindu law applied to the succession of a dasi’s property.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsel for the appellant submitted that Thangathammal was not a “married woman” but a dasi, who followed the traditional custom of devadasis and was dedicated to the temple. The appellant, having also adopted the dasi way of life, claimed a unique status within this community.

She argued that under established customary practice, only dasi daughters—i.e., those initiated and serving temples—were entitled to inherit the property of their dasi mothers. The appellant relied on oral testimonies from several witnesses (mostly dasis or relatives of dasis) who claimed that in prior instances, inheritance devolved only upon dasi daughters. These included examples from families such as Tulasi’s sister Mangalam, Chellappa, and Meenakshi, where married daughters were purportedly excluded.

She also drew analogies from precedents such as Narasanna v. Gangu, ILR 13 Mad 133, and Subbaratna Mudali v. Balakrishna Naidu, 33 MLJ 207, to emphasize that even judicial decisions had once recognized a rule of preference for “degraded” or deviated women inheriting from similarly situated women. However, the appellant’s reliance on hearsay and uncorroborated oral accounts without supporting documents weakened her position.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsel for the respondents (Jagadambal and supported by Meenambal) submitted that no legal or customary justification existed to exclude them from inheritance.

They contended that the general Hindu law of inheritance should apply. Under the principle of propinquity from the Mitakshara school, in absence of a male heir or husband, daughters inherit equally. They emphasized that the burden of proving any customary exclusion fell squarely on the appellant, and the evidence failed to establish any such binding or widespread custom.

They also highlighted the dubious and unconvincing nature of the appellant’s witnesses, most of whom lacked direct knowledge, cited events from decades ago, or based their knowledge on mere hearsay. They also relied on decisions like Balasundarani v. Kamakshi Ammal, 71 MLJ 785 and Subbaraya Pillai v. Ramaswami Pillai, ILR 23 Mad 171 to argue that degradation or profession does not alter blood relations, and hence cannot affect inheritance.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Mitakshara Hindu Law (Doctrine of Propinquity): Applied to divide property among heirs based on closeness of blood relations.

ii) Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Regarding admissibility of hearsay evidence, which the Court held was not satisfied by the appellant’s witnesses.

iii) Article 133 of the Constitution of India: Pertinent for granting special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that no uniform, certain, and ancient custom was proved that conferred exclusive inheritance rights on a dasi daughter to the exclusion of her married sisters. The Court reiterated the settled position that custom must be proved strictly and cannot be extended by analogy or logic. Without a clear custom, the ordinary rule of succession under Hindu law must apply.

It held that the principle of propinquity under Hindu law, based on justice, equity, and good conscience, would govern, meaning all daughters inherit equally. The Court emphasized that “custom must be established inductively, not deductively,” and cannot rest on “mere theory.”

Further, the Court rejected the argument that a dasi daughter was a “maiden” under Mitakshara law and hence preferential. The Court in Tara v. Krishna, ILR 31 Bom 495 had clarified that a prostitute or dasi could not be classified as a maiden for inheritance purposes.

b. OBITER DICTA

i) The Court discussed the social status of dasis, observing that even if they maintained separate cultural practices, it could not be assumed that those translated into binding customary law unless proven with rigor. The observation that degraded women do not form a separate legal class was significant in neutralizing outdated and patriarchal judicial notions about caste-based and profession-based inheritance.

c. GUIDELINES 

i) Custom must be proven with certainty, antiquity, and reasonableness.

ii) Oral evidence must be direct and reliable; hearsay is inadmissible unless it meets Section 32 conditions.

iii) No analogy from customs of similar groups can substitute proof of a specific community’s custom.

iv) Degraded status or religious dedication does not affect ties of kinship or inheritance rights.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The ruling in Saraswathi Ammal v. Jagadambal is a landmark affirmation of the rational application of Hindu personal law. It elevates the principles of equality among siblings, underscores the evidentiary rigor required to prove customs, and resists regressive attempts to exclude women based on their marital or professional status.

The Court’s refusal to recognize a discriminatory custom without solid proof reflects progressive judicial thinking, relevant even today in interpreting customary law in light of constitutional morality. It firmly invalidates prejudices that sought to create a separate legal category for women based on profession, and strengthens the application of secular, codified succession principles under Hindu law.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

1. Narasanna v. Gangu, ILR 13 Mad 133 [1]

2. Subbaratna Mudali v. Balakrishna Naidu, 33 MLJ 207 [2]

3. Subbaraya Pillai v. Ramaswami Pillai, ILR 23 Mad 171 [3]

4. Balasundarani v. Kamakshi Ammal, 71 MLJ 785 [4]

5. Abdul Hussein Khan v. Soma Dero, ILR 45 Cal 450 (PC) [5]

6. Tara v. Krishna, ILR 31 Bom 495 [6]

7. Shanmugathammal v. Gomathi Ammal, 67 MLJ 861 [7]

b. Important Statutes Referred:

1. Section 32, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

2. Article 133, Constitution of India

3. Mitakshara Law Principles on Succession