Important point
When a murderer son is totally disqualified to succeed to the estate of deceased, his wife can have no better claim in the property of her deceased father-in-law.

Headnote:Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Sections 6, 8, 25 and 27—Disqualification from inheriting property—A murderer son is totally disqualified to succeed to estate of deceased father—Wife of murderer son cannot have any claim in the property of deceased, father-in-law—Coparcenary property—1st defendant was the only son of his father ‘R’—Wife of ‘R’ was already divorced and married some other person—1st defendant married plaintiff appellant and both were residing as husband and wife—1st defendant murdered his father—His conviction under Section 302 IPC was confirmed by the High Court with recommendation to the Government to reduce his sentence to the period already undergone—1st defendant was released—Claim of wife of 1st defendant that she alone was entitled to all the properties left by her deceased father-in-law—Whether plaintiff can inherit the properties from the estate of her deceased father-in-law—(No).
       Held : As per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, if a male Hindu dies after commencement of this Act, an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with the Act. So far as the present case is concerned, the concurrent finding of the fact is that the deceased Ramasamy Konar was governed by Mitakshara Law and the property was the coparcenary property. But he died intestate. Therefore, as per Section 6, the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not by Section 6 of the Act and at the same time there is proviso to Section which qualifies the main Section that if deceased left a surviving female relative specified in class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class who claims through such female, the interest of deceased in Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be and not by survivorship. So far as the property in question is concerned, there is a finding of the Courts below that the property is a coparcenary property and if that being so, if the defendant No. 1 had not murdered his father then perhaps a thing would have taken a different shape. But what is the effect on the succession of the property of the deceased father when son has murdered him. If he had not murdered his father he would have along with his wife would have succeed in the matter. So far as the rights of coparceners in the Mitakshara Law are concerned, son acquires by birth or adoption a vested interest in all coparcenary property whether ancestral or not and whether acquired before or after his birth or adoption, as the case may be, as a member of a joint family. This is the view which has been accepted by all the Authors of the Hindu Law. (Paras 11 and 12)
       Defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff who was married to Defendant No. 1 were members of joint Hindu family. If the defendant- appellant had not incurred the disqualification, then they would have inherited the property as per Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. But the question is that when the sole male survivor had incurred the disqualification can he still claim the property by virtue of Mitakshara School of Hindu Law? If he cannot get the property by way of survivorship, then the question is whether his wife who succeeds through the husband can succeed to the property? Our answer to this question is in negative. (Para 17)
       Therefore, once it is held that a person who has murdered his father or a person from whom he wants to inherit, stands totally disqualified. Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act makes it further clear that if any person is disqualified from inheriting any property under this Act, it shall be deemed as if such person had died before the intestate. That shows that a person who has murdered a person through whom he wants to inherit the property stands disqualified on that account. That means he will be deemed to have predeceased him. The effect of Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is that a murderer is totally disqualified to succeed to the estate of deceased. The framers of the Act in the objects and reasons have made a reference to the decision of the Privy Council that the murderer is not to be regarded as the stock of a fresh line of descent but should be regarded as non-existent. That means that a person who is guilty of committing the murder cannot be treated to have any relationship whatever with deceased’s estate. (Para 20)
       Now, adverting to the facts of the present case, the effect of Sections 25 and 27 is that the respondent No. 1 cannot inherit any property of his father as he has murdered him on the principle of justice, equity and good conscience and the fresh stock of his line of descent ceased to exist in that case. Once the son is totally disinherited then his whole stock stands disinherited i.e. wife or son. The defendant-respondent No. 1 son himself is totally disqualified by virtue of Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act and as such the wife can have no better claim in the property of the deceased, Ramasamy Konar. (Para 21)

Judgment

A.K. Mathur, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Judicature at Madras whereby the learned Single Judge by his order dated 6th March, 1997 has allowed the Second Appeal No. 773 of 1983 filed by the respondent-1st Defendant herein.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are:

That an Original Suit No. 87/1978 was filed in the Court of the District Munsif, Melur by the plaintiff-appellant (herein).

The schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of late Ramasami Konar and the first defendant was the only son of Ramasami Konar and the plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant. Wife of Ramasami Konar was already divorced and married with some other person and was residing separately. It is alleged that the first defendant in the suit married the plaintiff-appellant and both were residing as husband and wife. On 10th October, 1972 the first defendant murdered his father, Ramasami Konar and was convicted under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment. The conviction of the first defendant was confirmed by the High Court but the High Court recommended the Government to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. The first defendant was released in July, 1975. Since the first defendant murdered his father, he was not entitled to succeed to the estate of his deceased father and as such the claim of the plaintiff was that she alone was entitled to all the properties left by the deceased Ramasami Konar. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant must be deemed to have predeceased as provided under Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act. She claimed to be the widow of the first defendant and claimed to be the owner of all the properties left by Ramasami Konar as coparcener. After the release of the first defendant from the prison, first defendant lived with the plaintiff for some time but after some time she was driven out of the house. Second defendant is already impleaded in the suit as tenant claiming under first defendant. Plaintiff, therefore, prayed that she may be granted the relief of declaration as she is entitled to inherit the entire estate of the deceased Ramasami Konar. As against this it was contended by the first defendant that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff is not the legal heir of Ramasami Konar. It was alleged that all the properties acquired by the Ramasami, were joint family properties and the first defendant has acquired the same by survivorship. The Trial Court by Order dated 31st March, 1980 held that all the properties are joint family properties of the deceased Ramasami Konar and first defendant. The second defendant is a cultivating tenant. The first defendant having murdered his father is not entitled to claim any right under Section 6 read with Sections 25 & 27 of the Act but as per proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act plaintiff is entitled to a decree for half share and accordingly it was granted to the plaintiff. This matter was taken up in appeal by defendant No. 1. The Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the finding of the Trial Court but modified the decree that it may be treated as preliminary decree. The Lower Court also held that first defendant must be treated as non-existent. The plaintiff became a Class I heir under Schedule 1 of the Hindu Succession Act and she was entitled to a share in the property. The appeal was dismissed.

3. Aggrieved against this, the first defendant preferred a second appeal before the High Court.

4. The High Court at the time of admission of the Second Appeal, framed following substantial questions of law.

“1. Whether Ex.A.2 judgment in the Criminal case is conclusive on the question of exclusion from inheritance in the present proceedings?

and

2. Whether the exclusion from inheritance would cover enlargement of interest by survivorship, in the light of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act?”

5. So far as the question No. 1 is concerned,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 811

Important pointWhen a murderer son is totally disqualified to succeed to the estate of deceased, his wife can have no better claim in the pro­perty of her deceased father-in-law.

Cases Referred (4)

Important point
When a murderer son is totally disqualified to succeed to the estate of deceased, his wife can have no better claim in the property of her deceased father-in-law.