Back
1924 Supreme(SC) 33
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD DUNEDIN, LORD PHILLIMORE, LORD CARSON, AND SIR JOHN EDGE.
KENCHAVA - Appellant
Versus
GIRIMALLAPPA CHANNAPPA - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Bombay.
Decided On : June 19, 1924.
A murderer is disqualified from inheriting an estate they accelerated through crime, and their heirs cannot claim title through them. Among bandhus of equal degree, male heirs are preferred over female heirs.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Law - Succession - Disqualification of Murderer - Where a person murders another to accelerate succession to an estate, such person is disqualified from inheriting. In the absence of specific provisions in the applicable personal law, the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience, grounded in public policy, exclude the murderer from succeeding to the estate. (Paras 14-17)
(B) Succession - Heirship through disqualified person - A murderer disqualified from inheriting is treated as non-existent for the purposes of descent. Consequently, the murderer does not form a stock for a fresh line of descent, and no title can be claimed through such a person by their heirs. (Para 20)
(C) Hindu Law - Bandhus - Preference of Male over Female - Among bandhus of equal nearness to the propositus, male members of the family are preferred over female members. (Paras 25-32)
Facts of the case:
An intestate died, and his estate was succeeded by his mother. The natural heir to the intestate subsequently murdered the mother to accelerate his own succession and was convicted and sentenced to transportation for life. A dispute arose between the daughters of the intestate's uncle and the son of the intestate's aunt regarding who should succeed to the estate, given the murderer's disqualification and the contention that the estate might vest in or through the murderer.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the murderer was disqualified from succeeding to the estate and that this disqualification was absolute, extending to both the legal and beneficial estate. It further found that the murderer must be treated as non-existent, meaning his heirs could not claim title through him. Between the remaining claimants, who were bandhus of equal degree, the male claimant was entitled to preference over the female claimants.
Issues: (1) Whether a murderer can succeed to an estate where succession was accelerated by the murder; (2) Whether title can be claimed through such a disqualified murderer; and (3) Whether, among bandhus of equal degree, a male is preferred over a female.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that public policy and principles of equity, justice, and good conscience disqualify a murderer from benefiting from their own wrong. Such a person is wiped out from the line of descent. Furthermore, following established precedents regarding bandhus, where claimants are of equal nearness to the propositus, the male takes precedence over the female.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
-
succession
-
intestate succession
- hindu law
- disqualification of heirs
-
intestate succession
-
succession
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences against the person
- murder
-
offences against the person
Judgement
Appeal (No. 100 of 1922) from a decree of the High Court (September 1, 1920) varying a decree of the first class Subordinate Judge at Darwar.
The suit was brought by the respondent against the appellants to recover from them possession of properties forming the estate of one Parappa, who died intestate in 1912. Upon the death of Parappa his mother Chanbasava succeeded to the estate. Hanmappa, who was next reversionary heir upon her death in 1914, was convicted of the murder of Chanbasava. The relationship of the parties appears from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The trial judge made a decree for the plaintiff for a third of the property ; he held that though the murderer was disqualified from taking the estate beneficially, it vested in him, and that as his heirs the plaintiff and defendants had equal rights.
Upon an appeal to the High Court, with cross-objections, the right of the plaintiff, the present respondent, to the whole estate was decreed.
The learned judges (Macleod C.J. and Fawcett J.) held that Hanmappa was disqualified upon the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, and that as a result of that disqualification the heirs of the intestate, and not the murderers heirs, succeeded. They further held that the respondent as a male bandhu of the intestate was to be preferred to the appellants, female bandhus in the same degree. The appeal is reported at I. L. R. 45 B. 768.
1924. May 12. E. B. Raikes for the appellants. Under Bom. Reg. IV. of 1827, s. 26, the principles of justice, equity and good conscience should have been applied only if no other law was applicable. The matter should have been determined according to HINDU LAW . The Hindu texts expressly lay down certain disqualifications from inheriting, but this is not one. Analogies of English law should not have been applied Ramchandra Martand Waikar v. Vinayak Kothekar . (( 1914) L. R. 41 I. A. 290, 299.) The English cases do not deal with succession to an intestates estate. Under ss. 61 and 62 of the Indian Penal Code the Court has power to forfeit the property of a person convicted of murder ; there is therefore no room for the application of the principles of public policy. Even if Hanmappa was personally disqualified, the appellants were entitled as his heirs Gangu v. Chandrabhagabai . (( 1907) I. L. R. 32 B. 275, 280.) But if the succession passed to the heirs of the intestate the appellants, as his fathers brothers daughters, according to HINDU LAW as applied in Bombay, were entitled in preference to the respondent, his fathers sisters son. In Saguna v. Sadashiv (( 1902) I. L. R. 26 B. 710.) the High Court at Bombay distinguished between the law in that Presidency and that laid down in Madras in Narasimma v. Mangammal . (( 1889) I. L. R. 13 M. 10.) In Balkrishna v. Ramkrishna (( 1920) I. L. R. 45 B. 553.) the decision in Saguna v. Sadashiv (( 1902)
I. L. R. 26 B. 710.) was not referred to. The appellants being within the gotra, and the respondents not being so, they were to be preferred, having regard to the doctrines of HINDU LAW prevailing in Bombay Maynes HINDU LAW , paras. 38, 585; Vijiarangum v. Lakshan (( 1871) 8 Bom. H. C. (O. C. J.) 244, 261.) ; Bai Kesserbai v. Hunsraj Mosarji (( 1906) L. R. 33 I. A. 176.); Parot Bapalal Sevakram v. Mehta Harilal Surajram . (( 1894) I. L. R. 19 B. 631.)
The respondent did not appear.
June 19. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD PHILLIMORE. This case involves some questions of importance. The parties are all relations, descendants of one Hanmanna. He had three children—a daughter, Basava, whose son Girimallappa Channappa Somasagar is the plaintiff and present respondent; a son Vadakappa who had two daughters, Kenchava and Gangava—who are the defendants and present appellants—and a son Hanmappa—of whom more hereafter. The third child of Hanmanna was another son, Ramanna, since deceased. Ramanna married Chanbasava ; they had no children, but they adopted, as a son, P
