Back
High Court of Kerala
P. BHAVADASAN
Manathankandiyil Nani & Another
Versus
Kuniyil Gangadharan
SA.No. 231 of 1997 (C)
Decided On : 06-06-2012
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 25 - Disqualification of murderer from inheriting property - Scope and application - Whether acquittal in criminal proceedings on ground of insanity negates disqualification - Meaning of 'murder' in Section 25 - Whether wider than definition in Indian Penal Code - Effect of Section 27 - Devolution of murderer's independent estate.
Fact of the Case:
Mohandas, the only child of Karthiyani, was acquitted in a criminal trial for the murder of his mother on the ground of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. Karthiyani died in 1983, and Mohandas died in 1988 without leaving any legal heirs other than the plaintiffs, who were Karthiyani's paternal sisters. The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the properties jointly owned by Karthiyani and Mohandas, as well as a property exclusively owned by Mohandas. The defendants, who were Karthiyani's second defendant, contended that Mohandas was disqualified from inheriting Karthiyani's estate under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that the plaintiffs had no right to the properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the acquittal of Mohandas in the criminal trial did not negate the disqualification under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act. The court interpreted the term 'murder' in Section 25 to have a wider meaning than the definition of murder in the Indian Penal Code, and held that it included acts that resulted in the death of another person, even if the perpetrator was acquitted on the ground of insanity. The court also held that Section 27 of the Act, which provides that a disqualified person shall be deemed to have died before the intestate, applied only to the assets that belonged to the victim, and not to the independent estate of the murderer. Therefore, the court remanded the case to the lower appellate court to determine whether Mohandas had independent rights over the properties in question and whether those rights would devolve as if they belonged to Karthiyani.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquittal of Mohandas in the criminal trial for the murder of his mother on the ground of insanity negated the disqualification under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 2. Whether the term 'murder' in Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act had a wider meaning than the definition of murder in the Indian Penal Code. 3. Whether Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, which provides that a disqualified person shall be deemed to have died before the intestate, applied to the independent estate of the murderer.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The disqualification under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act is not negated by an acquittal in a criminal trial on the ground of insanity. 2. The term 'murder' in Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act has a wider meaning than the definition of murder in the Indian Penal Code and includes acts that result in the death of another person, even if the perpetrator is acquitted on the ground of insanity. 3. Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, which provides that a disqualified person shall be deemed to have died before the intestate, applies only to the assets that belonged to the victim, and not to the independent estate of the murderer.
Final Decision: The court remanded the case to the lower appellate court to determine whether Mohandas had independent rights over the properties in question and whether those rights would devolve as if they belonged to Karthiyani.
P. Bhavadasan, J.
1. The twin questions that arise for consideration in this Second Appeal are (i) whether a murderer who secured an acquittal by virtue of the defence set up under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is disqualified under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act from inheriting the estate of the murderer and (ii) how is the separate estate of the murderer to devolve consequent on his death?
2. The facts fall within a very narrow compass and are not really in dispute. Plaint items 1 to 5 were acquired under Exts.A1, A2, A4, A5 and A7. The properties jointly belonged to Karthiyani and her son Mohandas. Ext.A6 relating to item No.6 of the plaint schedule is the property which Mohandas obtained by assignment from Kalliani, who was the second defendant in the suit. Mohandas was the only child of Karthiyani. Karthiyani, her husband and Mohandas died on 1983, 1959 and 1988 respectively. The plaintiffs are the paternal sisters of Mohandas. At the time of the death of Mohandas he had not left behind any legal heirs other than the plaintiffs. While they were in possession of the property, it is alleged that the defendants are said to have trespassed into the property and appropriated the usufructus from the property. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants have no manner of rights over the suit properties. They therefore sued for recovery of possession on the strength of title. The plaint also makes mention of a suit O.S.236 of 1989 filed by the second defendant in which she procured an interim injunction. On these allegations the suit was laid.
3. The defendants resisted the suit. Mohandas had no rights over plaint item No.6. It was in the exclusive possession of defendant No.2. The second defendant is the mother of Karthiyani, who was the mother of Mohandas. It is contended that Mohandas caused the death of his mother for which he had been convicted and sentenced. Since he had murdered his mother he is disqualified from inheriting her assets. Therefore the plaintiffs have no manner of rights over the suit property. As regards item No.6 it was contended that Et.A6 document was procured from the second defendant by threat and coercion and that has no value in law. Mohandas committed suicide on 18.10.1989. On the basis of these contentions, they prayed for a dismissal of the suit.
4. Issues were raised by the trial court. The evidence consists of the testimony of Exts.A1 to A8 marked from the side of the plaintiffs. The defendants did not adduce any evidence.
5. The trial court on an evaluation of the evidence came to the following findings: (i) Since Mohandas was acquitted in the criminal proceedings, it could not be said that he was guilty of murdering his mother. He is not disqualified from inheriting the estate of his mother and (ii) since the parties have not adduced any evidence regarding the personal law applicable, it is not possible to determine the issue involved. On the basis of the above findings, the suit was dismissed.
6. The aggrieved plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal as A.S.20 of 1994. The appellate court on an independent evaluation of the evidence before it came to the conclusion that by virtue of Ext.A3 judgment in the criminal proceedings, it is clear that Mohandas caused the death of his mother and therefore was disqualified under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act from inheriting the estate of his mother. Thereafter taking aid of Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act the appellate court came to the conclusion that Mohandas will be presumed to have died earlier than the intestate. However, applying Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act, it was found that the plaintiffs could not succeed and hence the dismissal of the suit was confirmed. It is the said judgment and decree that are assailed in this appeal.
7. Notice is seen issued on the following questions of law:
"1. Whether the lower appellate court was right in holding that Mohandas from whom the plaintiffs claim Success
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
