Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act reads as follows:

"25. Murderer disqualified.- A person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inhering the property of the person murdered, or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder."

S.A.231/1997.

The Section only makes mention of a person committing murder. It does mention that the person who has committed the offence of murder and not that the person who has been convicted for the offence of murder. The above provision has come up for consideration before different courts including the Apex Court. It will be useful at this point of time to refer to some of the decisions to understand the real purport of the word murder in Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act.

version of the direct witnesses that this court found it safe to convict him under Section 324, I.P.C. Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act does not contemplate punishment for murder to disqualify the murderer from inheriting the property of the murdered. The application of this provision ought not to be approached from the point of view of punishment for murder . This court has held that murder was clearly committed within the meaning of Section 300 I.P.C. The fact that he was given the benefit of doubt arising out of the conflicting versions of two witnesses and convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. does not in any way absolve him from the heinous crime to which he had made his own infamy contribution. Section 25 is introduced in the Hindu Succession Act as a matter of high public policy based on principles of justice, equity and good conscience to make it absolutely impossible for a murderer who deserves to be hanged or to be shut behind the prison bars for life, to derive advantage or beneficial interest from the very heinous act committed by him."

considerable force. He assaulted Revati with intention of causing her death. Therefore it can safely be held that he has committed murder of Revati within the meaning of the said expression as used in S.25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and therefore, is disqualified from inheriting the property of deceased Revati, the person murdered. Similar view is taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nannepuneni Seetharamaiah v. Nannepuneni Ramakrishnaiah (AIR 1970 Andrha Pradesh 407) wherein it is observed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that to apply the disqualification under S. 25 of the Hindu Succession Act it is not necessary that the person who committed murder or abeted commission of murder must also have been convicted of the offence of murder or of abetment of murder under S.302 of the I.P.C. The said Section does not contemplate punishment for murder to disqualify the murder from inheriting the property of the murdered. The application of the Section should not be approached from the point of view of punishment for murder.  S.A.231/1997.

Now, let me examine S.25 of the Act and whether I can apply the said principle as contended by the learned counsel for the  S.A.231/1997.

appellant to the facts and circumstances of this case. Section 25 reads as hereunder:

"Murderer disqualified.- A person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered, or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder."