Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
R. Singaperumal
Versus
Vellikkannu & Another
S.A. No. 773 of 1983
Decided On :Decided on : 06-03-1997
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 6 - Coparcenary property - Survivorship - Disqualification - Murder - Public policy - Plaintiff, wife of first defendant, claiming half share in coparcenary property as widow of predeceased son - First defendant convicted of murdering his father, the last male owner - Whether plaintiff entitled to succeed - Held, plaintiff cannot claim as widow of predeceased son - Coparcenary property governed by Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act - First defendant cannot claim half share as victim and murderer have not divided themselves - First defendant not entitled to inherit any share from victim under Hindu Law - Plaintiff can claim as widow only if there is succession to victim's estate - No succession, deeming provision that first defendant deemed to have died before victim also not applicable - Plaintiff not widow of predeceased son - Proviso to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act not applicable - Principle of justice, equity and good conscience applies - First defendant cannot be treated as fresh stock of descent, only as non-existent - Plaintiff cannot claim as his widow - Disqualification attached to first defendant equally applies to plaintiff - Suit dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, wife of first defendant, filed a suit seeking a declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit properties and for possession of the same. The first defendant is the only son of Ramasami Konar, who was the last male owner of the suit properties. The first defendant was convicted of murdering his father and sentenced to life imprisonment. The plaintiff claimed that she is entitled to succeed to the suit properties as the widow of the first defendant's predeceased son. The trial court granted a decree for half share in favour of the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court confirmed the same, but with a modification that the decree passed by the trial Court will be treated as a preliminary decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff cannot claim as the widow of the first defendant's predeceased son. The court found that the suit properties are coparcenary property governed by Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. The court held that the first defendant cannot claim half share as the victim and murderer have not divided themselves. The court also held that the first defendant is not entitled to inherit any share from the victim under Hindu Law. The court further held that the plaintiff can claim as a widow only if there is succession to the victim's estate. The court found that there is no succession, and therefore, the deeming provision that the first defendant deemed to have died before the victim also not applicable. The court held that the plaintiff is not the widow of the predeceased son. The court also held that the Proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is not applicable. The court applied the principle of justice, equity and good conscience and held that the first defendant cannot be treated as a fresh stock of descent, only as non-existent. The court held that the plaintiff cannot claim as his widow. The court also held that the disqualification attached to the first defendant equally applies to the plaintiff. The court dismissed the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to the suit properties as the widow of the first defendant's predeceased son? 2. Whether the first defendant is entitled to claim half share in the suit properties? 3. Whether the plaintiff can claim as a widow only if there is succession to the victim's estate? 4. Whether the Proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is applicable? 5. Whether the principle of justice, equity and good conscience applies?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff cannot claim as the widow of the first defendant's predeceased son because the suit properties are coparcenary property governed by Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the first defendant cannot claim half share as the victim and murderer have not divided themselves, the first defendant is not entitled to inherit any share from the victim under Hindu Law, the plaintiff can claim as a widow only if there is succession to the victim's estate, there is no succession, and therefore, the deeming provision that the first defendant deemed to have died before the victim also not applicable, the plaintiff is not the widow of the predeceased son, the Proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is not applicable, the principle of justice, equity and good conscience applies, the first defendant cannot be treated as a fresh stock of descent, only as non-existent, the plaintiff cannot claim as his widow, and the disqualification attached to the first defendant equally applies to the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit.
1. First defendant in O.S. No. 87 of 1978, on the file of the District Munsifs Court at Melur, is the appellant before this Court.
2. Suit filed by the plaintiff, after amendment of the plaint, is to direct the defendants to surrender possession of the properties to the plaintiff without let or hindrance, and for payment of mesne profits. Alternatively, a decree is also sought for partition claiming half share over the plaint items.
3. Material averments in the plaint may be stated as follows:—
The schedule properties, according to the plaintiff, are the self-acquired properties of late Ramasami Konar. First defendant is the only son of Ramasami Konar. Wife of the acquirer was already divorced, and she has married some other person and is residing separately. It is said that the first defendant married the plaintiff on Pappankuttu, and both of them were residing as man and wife. While so, on 10.10.1972, first defendant murdered his father Ramasami Konar and was convicted under Sec. 302, I.P.C. for life imprisonment in S.C. 26 of 1973, on 26.4.1973 by the Additional Sessions Judge of Madurai. In Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 1973, this Court confirmed the conviction but recommended to the Government to reduce the sentence as one of period already undergone. The first defendant had served three years imprisonment, and this Court found the same to be sufficient. The first defendant was released from prison sometime in July 1975. It is said that since the first defendant murdered his father, he is not entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased and, therefore, under personal law, plaintiff alone is entitled to all the properties left by the deceased. According to her, first defendant must be deemed to have died as provided under Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act. She claims to be the widow of the first defendant, and she claims to be the owner of the property. After his release from the prison, first defendant was living with the plaintiff for some time, but thereafter she was driven out of the house. Second defendant is already impleaded in the suit as tenant claiming under first defendant. Plaintiff, therefore, prays that she may be granted the reliefs above mentioned.
4. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, he contended that the suit is not maintainable. According to him, plaintiff cannot be a legal heir of Ramasami Konar. The further statement that the properties are self-acquired properties of Ramasami Konar is false. All the properties are joint family properties, and the first defendant has obtained the same by survivorship. The plaintiff cannot claim any right since the properties are joint family properties. He prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. The trial court, as per judgment dated 31.3.1980, held that all the properties are joint family properties of deceased Ramasami Konar and first defendant. Second defendant is a cultivating tenant. The first defendant having murdered his father, is not entitled to claim any right under the Hindu Succession Act and, therefore, as per Proviso to Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, a decree for half share was granted in favour of plaintiff. The matter was taken in appeal. The lower Appellate Court also confirmed the same, but with a modification that the decree passed by the trial Court will be treated as a preliminary decree. The lower Appellate Court also found that the appellant must be treated as non-existent and, therefore, plaintiff became a Class 1 heir under Schedule 1 of the Hindu Succession Act and, therefore, the right of Ramasami Konar over the property was devolved on the plaintiff. The appeal was dismissed.
6. It is against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, first defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.
7. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were raised for consideration:—
“1) Whether Ex. A-2 Judgment in the criminal case is conclusive on the que
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
