VELLIKANNU VS R.

SINGAPERUMAL & ANR ON 6 MAY, 2005

BLJ 4.3 LAW OF INTESTATE AND TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION

SUBMITTED BY:
SHREE PAWAR
UID: UGJ21-47
B.A.LL.B.(Adjudication and Justicing)
Semester-III
Academic Session:2020-21

SUBMITTED TO:
Prof. (Dr.) Vijender Kumar

Professor of Law

Ms. Priti

Assistant Professor of Law

 TABLE OF CONTENT

Sr. No Particulars Page. No

1. Composition of bench 3
2. Area of Law 3
3. Research questions 3
4. Research objectives 3
5. Research methodology 3
6. Reliance on relevant 3
Decisions
Statutes
7. Introduction 4
8. Ratio 5
9. Question before the court 5
10. Facts of the case 5
11. Decision of Trial court 6
12. Decision of High Court 7
13. Decision of Supreme Court 7
14. Relevant Precedents 8
15. Suggestions 9
16. Conclusion 10
 VELLIKANNU VS R. SINGAPERUMAL & ANR ON 6 MAY, 2005

COMPOSITION OF THE BENCH: The Supreme Court of India: Division Bench.

AREA OF LAW: Civil Law

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

Why is murderer and those claiming through him are disqualified from succession?

What was the purpose behind enactment of section 25 and 27 of Hindu succession act?

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

To critically study and analyse the case and find out the reasoning behind section 25 and 27
of Hindu Succession Act.

RESEARCH METHADOLOGY

In this research project I have majorly used secondary method of data collection. For
explaining these concepts, I have used descriptive method of doctorial method. This research
consists of analysis of all data obtained. I have referred to wide range of books and articles to
get familiar with topic and to know various aspects of the topic and to gain the proper
understanding.

RELIANCE ON RELEVANT

DECISIONS:

Riggs v. Palmer 115 N.Y. 506: 13 Am. 819.

Kenchava Sanyellappa Hosmani vs Girimalappa Channappa Somasagar on 19 June, 1924

STATUTES:

Hindu Succession Act 1956

INTRODUCTION

A person's religious beliefs are taken into consideration when applying Hindu law, which is a
particular code of conduct for Hindus. India is a country with a diverse culture, where people
of various religions coexist with one another with the help of in-depth understanding and
regard for one another's religion, which is protected by the Constitution.

When the law is silent on a particular issue then Hindu law follow its own principle of
Justice, equity, good conscience and public policy.

Jurisprudence that is followed:

“The importance of 'natural law' and of conscience is recognized by way of guidance in

matters of doubt where the Vedas, usage and custom and divine commands do not furnish
any help. Dharma is obeyed as such because of the coercive might of the State and the
Dharma Sastras of India (the legal text books) like those of Manu, Vaynavalkya, Narada,
Brihaspathi and others acquire the validity of statutes on the recognition of their authenticity
and authority by the State”.

Human beings are becoming so greedy and for fulfilment of that greed they can even kill
their close once and relatives. In ancient Hindu law murder is considered as a sin and has
effect of degrading the individual this degrading can lead to harsh consequence such as loss
of right of inheritance. There is a Latin maxim based on principle of justice and equity
“Nemo Ex Suo Delicto Meliorem Suam Conditionem Facere Potest” which literally means no
individual shall be benefited or take advantage from his own wrong. Through enactment of
section 25 of Hindu succession act the attempt has been done to fulfil the principle of ancient
Hindu law and Latin maxim.

The question of murderer's succession was first discussed in the case of Riggs v. Palmer 1
where in this case grandfather made a will that he will give all his property to his grandson
and the grandson in order to prevent his grandfather from making any changes in the will
killed his grandfather, the court in this case held that “even though there was no express

1
Riggs v. Palmer 115 N.Y. 506: 13 Am. 819
provision in furtherance of disinheritance, the defendant was liable to be excluded from
succession on the grounds of morality, and public policy, keeping in view the heinous crime”

It is an established law in India as well as in most of the countries that Murdered cannot
succeed the property of one who he has killed. It would be like Despite killing his benefactor,
an individual was given permission to keep his bounty.

RATIO

By the virtue of section 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act the murderer who here is
defendant and the Plaintiff who here is the wife of the murderer, they both cannot inherit the
property of Deceased, following the principle of justice, equity, public policy and good
conscience.

QUESTIONS BEFORE THE COURT

Whether, when the sole male survivor had incurred the disqualification can he still claim the
property by virtue of Mitakshara School of Hindu Law?

Whether wife being the sole member who succeeds through the husband who has been
disqualified can succeed to the property under section 6?

FACTS OF THE CASE

The defendant and plaintiff were husband and wife and the defendant has killed his father Mr.
Ramasami Konar on 10th October 1972 therefore he (defendant) was convicted for murder
under 302 IPC. After some years the sentence was reduced and the defendant was released
from jail thereafter the wife applied for divorce and before getting her second marriage done,
she filled for succession of the property of her father-in-law, her argument was that the
defendant was the only coparcener left behind and he cannot succeed the property his father
Ramasami Konar because he has killed his father and therefore under section 25 of Hindu
succession act he is not eligible to succeed to the property of one who he has killed and she
(plaintiff) should get all the property of her father-in-law as per section 6 and section 8 of the
act as a class one heir.
Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act2 reads as follows:

“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 of the murder”.

The Plaintiff also argued that by the virtue of section 27 read with S.25 of the act the
murderer will be considered as passed away before the issue of inheritance emerged and she
being the only member of the family will get all the property.

Section 27 of Hindu Succession Act3 reads as follows:

“If any person is disqualified from inheriting any property under this Act, it shall devolve as
if such person had died before the intestate”.

DECISION TRIAL COURT

The trial court in its decision of 31st march 1980 held that all the property in dispute is the
joint family property of Defendant and his father Mr. Ramasami Konar. Defendant because
he had murdered his father therefore is not entitled to get any property by the virtue of section
6, 25 and 27 of the act but under the proviso of S.6 he (defendant) is entitled to get half of the
share. The plaintiff appealed in the lower court against the order of trial court and the lower
court held that the defendant should be treated as non-existing and plaintiff should succeed
over the property as a Class I heir. The appeal of defendant was dismissed and plaintiff's
appeal was allowed.

Section 6 reads as:

“When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death
an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by
survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this
Act

Provided that, if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative specified in class I of
the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class who claims through such female
relative, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by

2
Section 25 Hindu Succession Act 1956
3
Section 27 Hindu Succession Act 1956
testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by
survivorship”.

DECISION OF HIGH COURT

The High court held that the decision of Lower court can be taken into consideration but the
main question which was before the court was to decide whether plaintiff can succeed the
property of her Father-in-law with respect to section 25 and 27 with section 6 and 8 of Hindu
Succession Act.

The share under Hindu law is certain only when the partition takes place but when in this
case the son is itself disqualified from claiming the property then wife has no legal basis to
claim half of the share.

It was held that section 6 of the act would not apply and the plaintiff cannot claim as the
widow of the son of deceased. It was also held that wife is entitled to the share till there is no
partition between father and the son. Defendant/Plaintiff cannot claim the share from victim
(Ramasami Konar) and plaintiff can only claim the share as long as there is succession from
victim. Since there is no succession the provision that son has died before father will not
apply and hence, she will not be entitled to claim the share as a widow of pre-deceased son.

The principle of justice and equity will be applied defendant will be treated as he never
existed and plaintiff cannot be treated as a fresh stock of descent therefore plaintiff cannot
claim as a widow of defendant as the defendant is disqualified from claiming any share the
same will be applied to Plaintiff as she cannot claim through her murderer husband.

DECISION OF SUPREME COURT

When the sole surviving coparcener has incurred disqualification can he still claim the
property by mitakshara Hindu law? If he cannot get the property then can the wife who
succeeds through him can she get the property? The court gave answer to this is a negative
way by stating that “Even when the section 25 and 27 were not there the murderer and his
stocks were disqualified from claiming the property of the deceased on the principle of justice
and equity”. This position of held by privy council long ago in the case of Kom Sanyellappa
Hosmani & Anr. vs. Girimallappa Channappa Somasagar4 it was held that

“A murderer must for the purpose of the inheritance, be treated as if he were dead when the
inheritance opened and as not being a fresh stock of descent; the exclusion extends to the
legal as well as beneficial estate, so that neither he can himself succeed nor can the
succession be claimed through him”.

Supreme court agreed with the decision of High court and took the similar view. The
honourable Supreme court answer the question with applying the principle of equity, justice
and public policy that the murderer and his subsequent heirs who claims through him cannot
claim and the murderer will be treated as never existed before and therefore those claiming
through him cannot claim. If husband is treated as never existed before then how wife can be
recognized.

The Joint Select Committee on the Hindu Succession Bill's objectives and justifications were
then cited by the Court in relation to this matter. There, it was clearly stated that even if
traditional/pristine Hindu Law does not prevent a murderer from inheriting, he will still be
regarded as having lost his inheritance based on the aforementioned factors. The exclusion
would apply to both legal and beneficial estates.

The court by interpreting Section 25 and 27 of the act stated that the murdered and his stock
will not be permitted to have any relations with the property of the deceased and due to the
fact, that after survivorship is acknowledged, a widow can only make a claim for property on
behalf of her husband's inheritance. The court concluded by stating that when the son itself is
disinherited then the wife who claims through him cannot claim to the property of her father-
in-law.

RELEVANT PRECEDENTS

This decision has been followed in many cases such as:

Tanya Sharma and Ors. v. Sh. Judge Chawla and Ors5

The court in this case held that “the murderer should be considered as never existed in the
family before and not being one who harbours the stock for a fresh line of descent”.
4
Kom Sanyellappa Hosmani & Anr. vs. Girimallappa Channappa Somasagar reported in AIR 1924 PC 209
5
Tanya Sharma and Ors. v. Sh. Judge Chawla and Ors 16 171 (2010) DLT 287
M. Nagarajanv. V.M. Nagammal6

In this case the husband had murdered his wife, it was held by the Court that “disqualification
of the murderer from inheriting the property of a person murdered should be extended to
receiving of service or death benefits of deceased in consonance with the principle of ‘justice,
equity and good conscience’ or say the paramount principle of public policy”.

Similar decision was given if the case Saroja Chandrasekar vs The Union Of India (2015)7.

In this case the wife was killed by her husband and the wife was having some properties
which she purchased before her marriage so according to Hindu succession act in ordinary
circumstance the property will devolve into her husband but here the husband was the person
who killed her therefore, he cannot inherit his wife's property not it can be claimed by his
parents but it will devolve into her family.

SUGGESTIONS

The property should not be devolved to the one who has murdered that individual and it
should also not devolve claiming through him is the basic idea of the section 27 and 25 as we
saw above this provision is justifiable because in many cases a brother kills his brother so that
he and his son can inherit more property together or when a son kills his wife so he and his
parents can enjoy the property of his wife. Murdered should be given a wide interpretation
and all the acts which are grievous such as culpable homicide no amounting to murder should
also be covered and the term “homicide should be used instead of “murder”.

One important question arises Why the heirs of murderer are disqualified from claiming
through him? The answer to this is to prevent from misuse as we saw above but there is
sometimes injustice to the person who has no contribution and just because of the act of his
father he has to suffer to prevent this the court should look at the circumstance and situations
of the case and then decide, murder is not also committed to claim the property there can be
various reasons for which a person can commit murder like in a case where son kills his
father out of anger just because the father use to beat him and his mother in this case what is
6
M. Nagarajanv. V.M. Nagammal SC 255 2026
7
Saroja Chandrasekar vs The Union Of India (2015).
the fault of the grandson? Grandson has no contribution in the crime still he has been
disqualified from claiming the property. All such situations should be considered by the court
while applying section 25 and 27 of the act.

CONCLUSION

It is well established rule of law that Murdered and those claiming through him are
disqualified from succession, section 25 and 27 of Hindu succession act prevents them. In
this case as we saw the wife of a murderer was disqualified from claiming her rights under
Section 6 and 8 of Hindu Succession Act from her father-in-law.

This provision of disinheritance is based on the principle of justice, equity, morality and good
conscience. No individual shall be benefited from his own wrong. The idea for enacting
these sections of prevention form claim is to deter the individual that if he commits a murder
his legal heirs will also be punished in a way of disqualification from succession.