Back
High Court Of Delhi
CHAMAN LAL - Appellant
Versus
MOHAN LAL - Respondent
Civil 375 of 1976
Decided On : 11/24/1976
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 8 - SUCCESSION - WIDOW - ACQUITTED OF MURDER CHARGE - ENTITLED TO INHERIT - UNCHASTITY NOT A DISQUALIFICATION - EARLIER ORDER IMPLEADING BROTHER AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE DOES NOT BAR SUBSEQUENT IMPLEADING OF WIDOW.
Fact of the Case:
Widow of a deceased Hindu male, acquitted of the charge of murdering her husband, sought to be impleaded as his legal representative in a pending suit. The trial court allowed the application, prompting the brother of the deceased to file a revision petition challenging the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the widow, having been acquitted of the murder charge, was entitled to inherit her husband's property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court further held that unchastity was not a disqualification for inheritance under the Act and that the earlier order impleading the brother as the legal representative did not bar the subsequent impleading of the widow.
Issues: 1. Whether the widow, acquitted of the murder charge, was entitled to inherit her husband's property? 2. Whether unchastity was a disqualification for inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act? 3. Whether the earlier order impleading the brother as the legal representative barred the subsequent impleading of the widow?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides that the property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves upon the heirs specified in Class I of the Schedule, which includes the widow. 2. There is no condition mentioned in the Hindu Succession Act for the exclusion of a widow from inheritance on her husband's death, except for the general provision in Section 25 disqualifying a person who commits or abets the commission of murder from inheriting the property. 3. The widow had been acquitted of the murder charge, and the acquittal was final for the purpose of the Hindu Succession Act. 4. The court cannot examine the charge of murder again and hold an independent enquiry or trial after acquittal from the criminal court. 5. Unchastity is not a disqualification for inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act. 6. The earlier order impleading the brother as the legal representative did not bar the subsequent impleading of the widow, as the widow was facing the murder charge at that time and was subsequently acquitted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the trial court's order impleading the widow as the legal representative of the deceased.
( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of civil revisions Nos. 375 and 376 of 1976 against the identical orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge dated 21st October 1975. By these orders the trial court decided the application of Mohan Lal dated 10. 4. 1985 under section 151 read with Order 22 rule 3 and Order 1 rule 10 C. P,c,
( 2 ) IN these applications Mohan Lal, who was a defendant in a suit filed by Rajinder Kumar, his brother and Smt. Shakuntala Devi, his mother, had alleged that Rajinder Kumar, plaintiff, died on 10-9-1972 leaving behind Smt. Shakuntala Devi widow of Rajinder Kumar who was suspected to be the murderer of her husband but has since been acquitted of the charge of murder on 23. 4. 1974 and is in a position to represent her husband in the above mentioned suit. It is further alleged in the application that Chaman Lal, his brother had made an application that he should be substituted as plaintiff in the above mentioned case. It was also alleged that under the Hindu Succession Act he is not the lawful heir or successor to his brother Rajinder Kumar in the presence of the widow Smt. Shakuntala Devi. It was in these circumstances, prayed that Smt. Shakuntala Devi who is widow of Rajinder Kumar and has not remarried is the rightful heir of the deceased Rajinder Kumar and should be brought on the record,
( 3 ) A reply was filed to this application by the petitioner Chaman Lal dated9. 10. 1975. In this reply it was averred that Smt. Shakuntala Devi no doubt was the wife but was instrumental in bringing about the murder of her husband Rajinder Kumar deceased. She was charged and challagd but given benefit of doubt. She was not purged of her complicity in the offence. She had played active and malignant hostility to the deceased and she is not entitled to succeed him. It was also alleged that it was because of unchastity that she brought about the murder of her husband and she is living an unchaste life. It was further submitted that the order of substitution of Chaman Lal had already been passed by the Court and that order has become final and operates as res judicata over the present controversy.
( 4 ) IT appears that two suits are pending in which identical impugned orders have been passed. One suit is filed by Devinder Kumar for possession on the basis of title by purchase of the property from Mohan Lal against Chaman Lal, Smt. Kamlesh, wife of Chaman Lal, Smt. Sat Bharai wd/o Sewa Ram and Rajindar Kumar as unauthorised occupants. Other suit was filed by Smt. Sat Bharai and her son Rajinder Kumar against the purchaser Devinder Kumar and Mohan Lal son of Smt. Sat Bharai for declaration that the property in dispute was joint Hindu property and could not be alienated by Mohan Lal alone.
( 5 ) RAJINDER Kumar died on 10. 9. 1972. Chaman Lal was already on the record of the suit filed by Devinder Kumar and he continued to be on the record. In the suit filed by Smt. Sat Bharai and Rajinder Kumar, Chaman Lal was impleaded by order dated 12th March 1973.
( 6 ) IT will be noticed that in this order both the widow of deceased Rajinder Kumar as well as Chaman Lal, brother are heirs successsors and since the allegation of murder against the widow is not yet proved, only Chaman Lal was brought on the record.
( 7 ) IT appears that thereafter the murder case failed against the widow and she has been acquitted. It matters not whether she was acquitted honourably or given benefit of doubt. In law she is acquitted. After the acquittal of the widow Smt. Shakuntala Devi is the only legal heir of her husband Rajinder Kumar to exclusion of any of the brothers of Rajinder Kumar. In these circumstances the trial court was justified in passing the impugned orders orders dated 21st October 1976 whereby Smt. Shakuntala Devi was impleaded as legal representative of the deceased Rajinder Kumar and notice was directed to be issued to her for appearance and for filing of the amended plaint.
( 8 ) IN the present revision petitions the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
