~ON PAPERS WITH SOLVED PROBLEMS

137
1,i.BO
A grandfather executed a will in favour of his grandson. The
14. grandson ~ed his gr~dfathe~ in o~der to inherit the property
at the earliest. Is he entitled to inhent under the will? Answer
the question from jurisprudential point.
Whether a murderer will inherit the property of the murdered?
Jssue No
Whether the murderer is disqualified from inheritance? Yes
Whether the grandson is entitled to inherit under the will? No
Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Murderer
Rule disqualified: A person who commits murder or abets the
commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the
property of the person murdered, or any other property in
furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or
abetted the commission ofthe murder.
to {]the disqualification from
Application The instant problem is related
inheriting the property of the person murderedO. The instant
problem is based on the principle that no one -shall be permitted
to profit by his own fraud nor to take advantage of his own
wrong, nor to found any daim upon his own iniquity, not to
acquire property by his own crimes.
Biggs v. Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506, One Francis B. Palmer
possessed ofpersonal and real property had made his will _giving
certain legacies to his two,daugh.ters and the remainder of his
estate to his grandson Elmer E. Palmer with a gift over to :the
daughters in case ElmershouWsurvive him.and die unmarried
and without issue. Elmer who knew of.the provisions made in
hisown favour in the will, mu.mered the testator by poisoning
him in order to prevent the testator fr-om revoking those
provisions and in order that he might obtain the immediate
possession and enjoyment of.thepropert;y. Uhas been held that
the devise and bequest to Ehner should be treated.as revoked
on the principle ofllno person 'Should benefit from her own
wron.g[l.
Schellenburger v. Ransomt; 3[ Neb. 6[. 28Am. St. 500., It
has been held that the transferees from the murderer acquired
no mterest in the estate of a person whom he murders forthe
purposeofremoving the life standing between him andthat-estate.
Conclusion lntheinstantprob1em, th.emwdererwillnotinheritthepr0perty
ofthe murdeFed. The murder.er is ,disqualified from inheritance.
Therefore, the grandson is not entitled to inherit under the will.
138
VIJAY LAW SERIEs

15. A statute has been enacted by the legisla~~e and the State is
prosecuted for violation of a statutorr prov1s10n. Is State bound
by its own statute? Discuss the relauon between State and law
with the help of modem legal thought.
Issue Can State be prosecuted for violation of statutory provision?Yes
Whether the State is bound by its own statute? Yes
Whether the State is superior to law? No
Rule Relation between State and law
Application The instant problem is related to Dt~e relation between State
and lawO. The existence of law without the State is not an
impossibility, but in modern times generally law is linked with
the State. Anumber of decisions and theories of law have been
given in tenns of State. The main theories have been given about
the relation between the law and State. They are;
The State is superior to law and makes it: Austin defined law as
the command of the sovereign. According to him only the
sovereign has the power to make law and he is not bound by it.
In modern times, the community has come to be regulated by
the Rule made by the State. Therefore, _the prevalent view is
that State makes law and is superior to it.
The law is anterior to State and is binding on the State: According
to Dicey the law is supreme and there is no arbitrary power in
the State. Certain rights to the individuals have been guaranteed
and the State is considered to be bound by them. The State
cannot be said to be absolutely bound by it.
Law and the State are the same: According to Han Kelsen, the
State and law are the same things. The law is more fundamental
than the State.
Indian law: Article 300 of the Constitution of India deals with
liability of State. The Government of India may sue and be sued
in the name of Union of India. The Government of State may
sue and be sued in the name of State. It is not only impossible
to exercise unlimited powers but it is also undesirable to give
unlimited powers to anybody.Austinr:s theory or sovereignity is
not applicable to the States of modern times.
Conclusion In the instant problem, the State can be prosecuted for violation
of a statutory provision. The State is bound by its own statute.
Hence, the State not is superior to law in the light of modem
trends.
 ON pAPERS WITH SOLVED PROBLEMS 139
L,f>IJQuf$11

A bookshop owner kept a book by name □Lady DirectoryO

16. containing the photos, addresses, phone numbers and access
different call girls in his shop. Ramu who visited the shop objected
the display and sale of this book but in vain. Ramu wants to file
a criminal complaint against the shopkeeper for corrupting the
public morals. Advise Ramu.
Whether offense of conspiracy is committed? No
Jssue
Whether selling of Lady Directory is a statutory offense? No
Whether the defendant is liable in the absence of law? No
In order to convict for conspiracy, the defendant must plan to
Rule
do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.
Section 2(4) of the Obscene Publications Act, 1959
Sexual OffencesAct, 1956ofUnitedKingdom.
Application The instant problem is related to □conspiracy to corrupt public
morals□. Facts of the problem are similar to the following case.
Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions, (1962) AC 220, the
appellant, with the object of assisting prostitutes to ply their
trade, published a magazine called □Ladies DirectoryO. It
contained the names, addresses and telephone numbers of
prostitutes with photographs ofnude female figures, and in some
cases details which conveyed to initiates willingness to indulge
not only in ordinary sexual intercourse but also in various perverse
practices. The appellant received fees from the prostitutes whom
he canvassed and advertised and the prostitutes paid for
advertisements out ofthe earnings of their profession and some
of them obtained custom by means of the advertisements. The
appellant also derived profit from the magazine from certainly
one person to whom he sold copies for resale. It has been held
that a) an offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals existed
at common law, was indictable as a conspiracy to commit a
wrongful act which was calculated to cause public injury or,
possibly, as a conspiracy to commit a criminal offence, the
criminal offence being conduct calculated and intended to
corrupt public morals.
Conclusion In the instant problem, by selling the Lady Directory does not
constitute the offense of conspiracy . The selling of Lady
Directory is not a statutory offense because the same is not
prohibited by law. Hence, the defendant is not liable in the
absence oflaw.
 VlfllJ\IVl
140 -~s~
17. Sahu, a civil bbelty activist,.....i.._ ispreven1ivelydetained:t,. ~i.
. R · .. ii..~ Yu11elf.\r,,ij
and his whereabouts are nm M10wn. aJam, ll'll& friend. ·t'V ee
file a writ petition ~n .tlle grol!lmi ~at miatw"~ ll:lstice, ~~tsto
were not followed ~n tbe prev.en~on,detent10n orsJ~c1pJ:s
other fundamental n~ts are also violated. C3?_.· she get an and.his
Decide the case app1ymgboth aatural and positive1aw ,-Y r~lief?
Whether the detention of Sahu is valid? No '.Ptlnctpies.
Issue
Whether the principles-ofnatural justice -followed? No
Wbether•the fundamental cig'hts,0fSama:affected? ¥es
"Whether Rajani is entitledto constitutional·remedies? Yi
1

• .-1 .• ~ • ....,f.'. • • es
Preventiv.erleteRtl.())n:am.l,fV101ation ·m iprmotp1es:0fnaturai . .
Rule !L..'1 ,. )1t dr+ r:lf.'.L. .• ausnce
Application The instant nF0u.1em
r
1s re1a e •L0.uu•1eprev.entwe,det-tt·
.. -•~
violation,of:the principlesiofnatura1 justice!]. ·
logind~ lramar v. :State ~f U .P. and :Others,,1994 'SOC, ,
260, JogmderK~arwas:a y0~gpers0~ wh~.after:conu,,Je~ ~
4
his lawemo~edmn.is.~:as,anadvocate. -~ e.daylhe was,canJ 1

by ssP,Gazrabad m his ,0ffic.eformalciqg~ome1enquinies:

10
wme,c.ase. Thepefitioner:011·7t[!/:1-994;along\withhislbr©fi.e
C':Cm> h . •1.. d .. Ul! fS
appe~ed hefore:.!l:.i>':r w. e~e1~ ~e ·-w.as et~ed.andlfelativ.es
1
.·

were info~~d1hathe-w0t1ld be '.fr~e.iby,e:v.~~g:after,maki!lg

some,engumes. Howeverw.henpetrt10.ner,.d1dm0.t:tunntbaoktil1
-9/1/94.and no :satisfactoryrep1y\w.as,giv_en;ab0.utp.etitio11er;ano
his whereabouts ,were not informed~~y rpo1iu~,rtheibrethers!of
petitioner mov.e..d it:o ·Supreme,Court. ·mhere ithe'.Couutf@und
that the victim was detained jllegally forfiv.e.dayS:by_police.
There the -Coulit founa ·violation of Article 2'1 and 12(1 )-of
,Constitution and·while•deliveringjudgmenvthe,C0urtdssued
:directions that: 1) An ·arrested 1pers0n,beingheld 'in custodyjs
entitled, 1.fhe·soTequests ·to 1have ·one friend,relative-orother
per8on who is b0WRto nim,or 1likely,t0 1take \interest in 'his
welfare told aslfar,asis ipractica1ithaVhelhasibeen:arrested.and
mhei:e:he;has rboonrmetaineo.m)'illheip©lia.eoffiaeJ\Shall:infenn
the,mested,person\whenlheiisfhrol!ghttotJ)dlice:-statioIMlfithis
right. iii) An entcy~hall:be-reqtiir.edt0!be;madein~theDiary:as1t0
·who was infomned,<l>fthe;arrest.
·Conclusion 1nfueinstantpir@b1em, ·,the-detention of'Sahujs1not,valid:IT'.he
;pnooiple-s -0f matural gustice ,are mot £011©-we.d. Thus,_,th~
!funrunnenta1~;,0f Sahu(gotaffected.Hence,~jartiis.entitleo
1

t<:xe0nstitutio.rull;remedies:f0r,theirelease.0f'Sahu.