H.S. CHATURVEDI, J. :- This special appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for possession. The facts of the case are not disputed. One Ram Harakh Singh was the last male owner of the property which is involved in this suit. In the year 1916, he was murdered by his first two cousins, namely Ram Anand Singh and Ram Narain Singh, sons of Chandika Singh real brother of Ram Harakh Singhs father. Both the brothers, that is, Ram Anand Singh and Ram Narain Singh were prosecuted and ultimately convicted under S. 304, I.P.C.

2. On the death of Ram Harakh Singh, his widow succeeded to the estate of her husband as a Hindu widow, and in that capacity she remained in possession of her husbands property till her death in 1933. She was survived by her daughter, Menda Kaur, but she could not succeed because of a family custom which excluded daughters from inheritance. Ram Anand Singh and Ram Narain Singh were in possession of the property of Ram Harakh Singh when this suit was filed in 1945 by Maharaja Singh and his transferees.

In the pedigree of the family, Maharaja Singh belongs to the line of Gajgah Singh while Ram Anand Singh and Ram Narain Singh who were impleaded as defendants in the suit, belonged to the line of Alopi Singh brother of Gajgah Singh. Ram Harakh Singh also, who was murdered belonged to the line of Alopi Singh.

3. In the plaint Maharaja Singh and his transferees claimed the property on the ground that Ram Anand Singh and Ram Narain Singh and their descendants were disqualified from inheriting the property of Ram Harakh Singh because of his murder committed by Ram Anand Singh and Bam Narain Singh. It was pleaded that if Ram Anand Singh and Ram Narain Singh and their male issues were left out, then Maharaja Singh was the nearest reversioner to succeed to the estate of Ram Harakh Singh.

4. The suit was defended by Ram Anand Singh and Ram Narain Singh who pleaded that there was no rule of Hindu law which prevented a murderer from succeeding to the estate of his victim. In the alternative, it was maintained that in the presence of Bijay Bahadur Singh and Rampal Singh, sons of Ham Anand Singh, who were nearer heirs, the plaintiff Maharaja Singh could not succeed as he was more remote to Ram Harakh Singh.

5. At the trial it was nut disputed that the two sons of Ram Anand Singh were nearer in degree to Ram Harakh Singh than the plaintiff Maharaja Singh. When the second appeal was pending both Ram Anand Singh and Ram Narain Singh died and in their place Bijai Bahadur and Rampal Singh, sons of Ram Anand Singh, were brought on record as their legal representatives.

6. The two Courts below held that by committing the murder of Ram Harakh Singh, Ram Anand Singh and Ram Narain Singh had disqualified themselves from inheriting the property of Ram Harakh Singh. The learned Single Judge of this Court, who heard the second appeal, concurred in the view taken by the lower Courts. It is now well settled that a murderer is debarred from succeeding to the estate of the person murdered. It is against public policy to allow a murderer to benefit himself by his own fellow.

We need only cite the Privy Council decision in - Kenchava v. Girimallappa, 51 Ind App 368 : (AIR 1924 PC 209) (A), which lays down that the principles of justice, equity and good conscience require that a murderer be disqualified from inheriting the estate of his victim. It cannot, therefore be doubted that the two murderers, namely Ram Anand Singh and Ram Narain Singh, were disqualified from succeeding to the estate of Ram Harakh Singh.

7. The main question raised at the trial and reiterated before us is whether the respondents also are disqualified from succeeding to the estate of the murdered person merely because they happen to be the sons of one of the murderers. The learned single Judge, in agreement with the Courts below, held that as the respondents do not base their claim to succeed through their father (murderer) but claim the estate of the last male owner in