Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1982
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.
Biju P. Das S/o Pathissery Haridas - Appellant
Versus
Malathi Haridas W/o Pathissery Haridas - Respondent
R.F.A. No. 123 of 2020
Decided On : 01-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A. Balagopalan, A. Rajagopalan, M.N. Manmadan, M.S. Imthiyaz Ahammed, Shyama A.S.
For the Respondents: P. Chandrasekhar, K.K. Mohamed Ravuf, Satheesh V.T., Manjari G.B.
IMPORTANT POINT
An acquittal under Section 84 IPC does not disqualify a plaintiff from inheriting property; disqualification only applies to descendants, not the convert himself.
Headnote:
(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 25 - Disqualification of Murderers - The court addressed issues regarding the entitlement of a person acquitted under Section 84 IPC from inheriting properties of the deceased. The appellant's claim of disqualification for religion conversion was rejected citing that only descendants are disqualified. (Paras 9 - 17 ).
(B) Suit for Partition - The trial court ruled on partition among heirs, determining shares after evaluating evidence that showed the 2nd plaintiff was entitled to inheritance. (Paras 2 , 4 , 18 ).
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs sought partition of properties left by their deceased father, contested by defendants claiming that the 2nd plaintiff murdered the decedent and later converted to Islam. Defendants failed to prove murder and the 2nd plaintiff's capability.
Findings of Court:
The 2nd plaintiff is entitled to inherit as he was acquitted and the disqualification do not apply under the Hindu Succession Act.
Issues: Whether the 2nd plaintiff is disqualified for being acquitted of murder and converting to another religion.
Ratio Decidendi: Acquittal under Section 84 IPC removes disqualification under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act; conversion affects descendants, not the convert.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inception of partition suit by heirs. (Para 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT :
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.
1. The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No.47 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam, are the appellants. (For the purpose of convenience the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court).
2. The plaintiffs filed this suit for partition. As per the plaint averments, the plaint A, B, C, D and E schedule properties belonged to late Haridasan, who died intestate on 12.4.2005. The 1st plaintiff is the wife, the 2nd plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are the children born to 1st plaintiff and Haridas. According to plaintiffs, the parties are governed by the Hindu Succession Act and as such the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to get ¼ share each from the schedule property. According to them, the defendants are not co-operating for an amicable partition and hence the suit.
3. The defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement admitting the relationship between the parties and also that the plaint schedule properties are left behind by Haridasan, who died intestate on 12.4.2005. However, according to the defendants, it was the 2nd plaintiff, who killed Haridasan on 12.4.2005. Therefore, according to the defendants, the 2nd plaintiff is disqualified from inheriting the properties left behind by Haridasan. Further, they have contended that on 29.11.2003, the 2nd plaintiff converted to Islam religion and changed his name as Ijaz and living as a Muslim and on that ground also he is not entitled to inherit the properties left behind by Haridas. Therefore, they prayed for dividing the properties among 1st plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2.
4. The trial court framed four issues. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of the 1st plaintiff as PW1, Exhibits A1 to A13 and B1 to B4. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court found that the 2nd plaintiff is entitled to get share from the schedule properties and passed a preliminary decree accordingly. As per the preliminary decree the trial court directed that plaint A schedule property is liable to be divided into 16 shares from which the 1st plaintiff is entitled to get 1 share and the 2nd plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to get 5/16 shares each while plaint B to E schedule properties were to be divided equally among them. Being dissatisfied with the above judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants preferred this appeal.
5. Now, the points that arise for consideration are the following:
1) Whether a person, who was charged of murder and acquitted under Section 84 of the IPC, is disqualified from inheriting the properties of the murdered?
2) Whether the 2nd plaintiff is disqualified from inheriting the properties of Haridasan for the reason that he has converted his religion?
6. Heard Sri. A. Balagopalan, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Anoop Krishnan, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.
7. The points: The fact that the 1st plaintiff is the wife and 2nd plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are the children of late Haridasan, is not in dispute. It is also admitted that plaint A to E schedule properties were left behind by Haridasan, who died intestate on 12.4.2005. The contention taken by the defendants is that the 2nd plaintiff is disqualified from inheriting the properties of Haridasan as he murdered Haridasan on 12.4.2005. Another contention taken by the defendants is that the 2nd plaintiff abandoned Hinduism and converted to Islam religion and on that ground also, he is disqualified from inheriting the properties of Haridasan. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the trial court was not justified in allotting a share from the plaint schedule property to the 2nd plaintiff.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would argue that in the murder case, the 2nd plaintiff was acquitted under Section 84 of the
