Ratios
a. A heir disqualified under Sec.25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would not be entitled to succeed to the property of the deceased.
b. If any person is disqualified from inheriting any property under the Hindu Succession Act, it shall devolve as if such person had been non existent for the purpose of inheritance.
c. Principle regarding the disability of a murderer from inheriting the property of the victim would be equally applicable to the service benefits available on the death of such victim.

Headnote:(A)Hindu Succession Act, 1956(30 of 1956)-Sec.5, 14(1), 25-Hindu law-Property-Pension-Murder-Succession-Legal heir-Equity-Appellant had caused the death of his wife and children and was convicted to death which was later altered to life imprisonment-As the deceased wife had been working in the Government at the time of her death, on her death, her legal heirs were entitled for her death benefits including pension-Respondent, who was the mother of the deceased had filed a declaratory suit to declare herself as the sole legal heir which was resisted by the appellant by contending that Sec.25 would not be applicable to the case, pension was not a ’property’ and the plaintiff was residing with her son who was receiving high salary-When the trial Court decreed the suit and granted the mother succession certificate and the appellate Court had also confirmed it, the appellant filed second appeal-Parties stood by their stands-Held, the disability of the murderer to succeed to the benefits arising out of murder was based upon justice, equity and good conscience-Pension arising on the death of a Government servant would also be ’property’ and subject to the provision of Sec.25 of the Hindu Succession Act-As the appellant had murdered his wife, by virtue of justice, equity and good conscience, he was not entitled to the pension-Judgment under appeal was upheld and the second appeal was dismissed.
       (B)Hindu Succession Act, 1956(30 of 1956)-Sec.5, 14(1), 25-Hindu law-Property-Murder-Succession-Legal heir-Equity-A heir disqualified under Sec.25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would not be entitled to succeed to the property of the deceased-If any person is disqualified from inheriting any property under the Hindu Succession Act, it shall devolve as if such person had been non existent for the purpose of inheritance.
       Entitlement to succeed to the property of the victim depends upon the key factor whether he is qualified to succeed. When a heir is disqualified under Section 25 of the Act, he cannot be said to be entitled to succeed to the property of the deceased. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below that the appellant/defendant is not entitled to the property of the deceased Muniyendra, cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the provisions of the statute, principles of ’justice, equity and good conscience’. As per Section 27 of the Act, if any person is disqualified from inheriting any property under this Act, it shall devolve as if such person had died before the intestate, which means that he was non existent for the purpose of inheritance and therefore, no right to the estate of the deceased can be claimed through him. Para 23
       (C)Hindu Succession Act, 1956(30 of 1956)-Sec.5, 14(1), 25-Hindu law-Property-Pension-Murder-Succession-Legal heir-Equity-Principle regarding the disability of a murderer from inheriting the property of the victim would be equally applicable to the service benefits available on the death of such victim.
       Even though Hindu Succession Act does not specifically debar the murderer from receiving the service or the death benefits of the victim, the disqualification provided under Section 25 of the Act, to inherit the property of the person murdered, should be extended even to receive the above benefits and it can be justified on the principle of ’justice, equity and good conscience’ otherwise, a person who is disqualified to inherit any movable and immovable properties acquired by a female Hindu would be otherwise qualified to receive the service and death benefits of the victim. Para 34

JUDGMENT

1. Mother-in-law has filed the suit against the son-in-law, for a judgment and decree, to declare that she is the only heir of her daughter Muniyendra. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence let in by both parties, by judgment and decree in O.S. No. 700 of 2000, the learned Principal District Munsif, Gudiyatham, granted a decree, as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant/son-in-law preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 7 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham. The lower appellate Court has confirmed the decision, stated supra. Assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed as per their litigative status in the lower Court.

3. The detailed pleadings are as follows:

According to the plaintiff, her daughter Muniyendra was employed as a Typist in Excise department in the office of the Tahsildar, at Gudiyatham. Her husband/defendant murdered Muniyendra and her children on 17.1.1983, at Gudiyatham. The defendant was tried and sentenced to death by the Learned District Sessions Judge, North Arcot at Vellore, and on appeal, it was modified to imprisonment for life by the High Court. The plaintiff has further stated that the deceased Muniyendra was entitled to benefits, such as, Gratuity, General Provident Fund and other benefits from the Excise Department and that the plaintiff is the only heir. According to her, as the defendant was the cause for the murder, he is disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered.

4. The plaintiff has further submitted that as she is the only legal heir to inherit to the property of her deceased daughter, she had applied for a succession certificate in O.P. No. 54 of 1990, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, to receive the abovesaid benefits and also other amounts, which stood in the name of the deceased Muniyendra in the Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Gudiyatham. After enquiry, the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, granted a Succession Certificate to the plaintiff and on the strength of the same, the plaintiff has also drawn the amounts due and payable by the department. However, when she applied for family pension to which, she is legitimately entitled to, the Tahsildar, Gudiyatham, sent a communication, stating that the plaintiff should get a declaration from the Court to the effect that she is the only heir of the deceased Muniyendra. According to the plaintiff, the defendant, her son-in-law, the murderer alone was responsible for non payment of family pension. It is also her further submission that when the department granted all the other benefits on the basis of Succession Certificate issued by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, in O.P. No. 54 of 1990 dated 26.3.1991, she ought to have been paid family pension also. As the plaintiff was an aged person with no other source of income for her livelihood and dependent on the family pension of the deceased Muniyendra, she has filed the suit for the relief, stated supra.

5. The defendant in the written statement, has denied the contention that the plaintiff‘s daughter Muniyendra and her children were murdered on 17.1.1983 by him at Gudiyatham. He has also denied the contention that he was convicted for life imprisonment. According to him, the plaintiff is not entitled to receive the death benefits of the deceased Muniyendra, such as, Gratuity, General Provident Fund and other benefits from the Department. He has also denied the contention regarding the issuance of Succession Certificate in O.P. No. 54 of 1990 and the orders passed thereon. The defendant has further stated that his wife and children were murdered by some unknown persons on 16.1.1983 and that he is innocent. He has also alleged that the said deceased Muniyendra was having illegal contacts with other persons. According to the defendant, on the date of institution of the suit, the plaintiff was living

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(Mad) 4854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASS. Manikumar, J.M. NagarajanVersusV.M. NagammalS.A. No. 225 of 2006Decided On : 23 December 2011

Cases Referred (8)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Manikumar, J.
M. Nagarajan
Versus
V.M. Nagammal
S.A. No. 225 of 2006
Decided On : 23 December 2011