The court applies the Slayer Rule disqualifying a murderer from inheriting property, emphasizing justice and public policy over statutory silence in the Indian Succession Act.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

1. The plaintiff in OS No.1125/1999 on the files of the Additional Munsiff’s Court-II, Neyyattinkara, a suit for declaration and injunction, has come up in the present appeal, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered against her. In this appeal, this Court is called upon to consider the applicability of the ‘Slayer Rule’, a common law doctrine to the Indian Law, especially when the parties are governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: Plaintiff’s daughter and the defendant were married on 14.11.1996 as per the custom prevailing among the Christian Community. Prior to the marriage, the plaintiff along with her son, Vijayan, executed a settlement deed dated 23.9.1996 in favour of the defendant and the plaintiff’s daughter, deceased Valsala. The property of 20 cents was given to her daughter and to her husband as Sthreedhanam at the time of marriage. Even after the registration of the settlement deed, the defendant was not satisfied and always demanded more dowry. The defendant was not satisfied with the land acquired by the settlement deed and demanded cash. Rs.75,000/- was thus paid to the defendant after registering a sale deed of the land on 19.2.1997. The amount was deposited in the joint names of the plaintiff’s daughter and the defendant, vide deposit receipt No.752285/41/97 of the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., Charottukonam Branch, Thiruvananthapuram. On 25.5.1997, the defendant murdered his wife and that the defendant was charge-sheeted under Sections 498A, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the defendant being the first accused in SC No.97/99 pending before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. In the light of the fact that the fixed deposit is maturing and that the plaintiff is the sole legal heir, who is entitled to receive the amount, the suit was instituted. The defendant remained ex parte. No written statement was filed. But still, the trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the parties are governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and therefore, unlike the provisions contained under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there is no provision which disqualifies a husband who is a murderer of his wife, being disentitled to inherit the property of his wife. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, A.S.No.155/2010, before the Additional District Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, which was also dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.

3. On 12.4.2011, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

“1. When the settlement deed dated 17.2.1997 was executed in favour of the respondent and his wife prior to their marriage on 14.11.1996 by the deceased plaintiff, the mother of the deceased wife of the respondent, whether the husband could claim any right in the property in view of the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in the light of the decision of this Court in Rani v. Sasidharan ( 2002 (1) KLT 194 )?

2. When respondent was convicted and sentenced for dowry death of his wife, whether respondent could claim any right in the property of his wife and whether courts below were justified in ignoring the general principles accepted by the all systems of law that no one should be allowed to reap the fruits of his crime and a murderer of his wife shall not inherit the properties of the wife?”

4. Heard Smt.M.Hemalatha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.M.R.Jayaprasad, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. This Court had called for a