Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

25. Murdered 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.

7. Thus, if Dr.Ramachandran, is guilty of murdering his wife-Dr.Kalyani, he would be disqualified from inheriting her property as per the aforesaid provision. Insofar as the child Baby Keerthana is concerned, who would, in that seniority, inherit the intestate of her mother on her demise. As per Section 15(1)(d) of the said Act, the estate would devolve upon the heirs of her father being Respondents 7 & 8. It is only in the next category, as per Section 15(1)(e) of the said Act, the heirs of the mother, being the petitioners, be entitled. It appears that it is on account of these legal provisions that respondents 7 & 8 have claimed the right of inheritance under Section 15(1)(d) of the said Act over the rights of inheritance of the rights of the petitioners under Section 15(1)(e) of the said Act.

" In their Lordships' view it was rightly held by the two Courts below that the murderer was disqualified ; and with regard to the question whether he is disqualified wholly or only as to the beneficial interest which the Subordinate Judge discussed, founding upon the distinction between the beneficial and legal estate which was made by the Subordinate Judge and by the High Court of Madras in the case of Vedanayaga Mudaliar v. Vedammal (ILR (1904) 27 Mad 591), their Lordships reject, as did the High Court here, any such distinction. The theory of legal and equitable estates is no part of Hindu law, and should not be introduced into discussion.

17. This position of law was incorporated by way of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as quoted above, which clearly enunciates that a person who commits murder or abates 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. In fact, the objects and reasons also makes a reference to the Privy Council judgment (supra). The objects and reasons for enacting Section 25 read as under :

" A murderer, even if not disqualified under Hindu Law from succeeding to the estate of the person whom he has murdered, is so disqualified upon principles of justice, equity and good conscience. The murdered is not to be regarded as the stock of a fresh line of descent but should be regarded as non-existent when the succession opens."

18. Therefore, once it is held that a person who has murdered his father or a person from whom he wants to inherit, stands totally disqualified. Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act makes it further clear that if any person is disqualified from inheriting any property under this Act, it shall be deemed as if such person had died before the intestate. That shows that a person who has murdered a person through whom he wants to inherit the property stands disqualified on that account. That means he will be deemed to have predeceased him. The effect of Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is that a murderer is totally disqualified to succeed to the estate of deceased. The framers of the Act in the objects and reasons have made a reference to the decision of the Privy Council that the murderer is not to be regarded as the stock of a fresh line of descent but should be regarded as non-existent. That means that a person who is guilty of committing the murder cannot be treated to have any relationship whatsoever with deceased's estate. (paragraphs 16, 17 & 18 SCC pages 631-633) The aforesaid view, in our view, makes this issue really res integra. The legal position is enunciated on the principle of justice, equity and good conscience and as a measure of public policy, and has its origination from the observations of the Privy Council as far back in the year 1924. The murderer, thus, has to be treated as non-existent and would not thus create a fresh line of descent. The murderer for the purpose of inheritance has to be treated as if, he was not there when the inheritance opened and not for the purposes of a fresh stock of descent. Thus, neither can he claim succession nor can the succession be claimed through him. We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that Dr.Ramachandran being disqualified from inheriting the property of the child Baby Keerthana, respondents 7 & 8 would not be entitled to the estate as they claim through late Dr.Ramachandran, and this would thus put at rest the long controversy making the petitioners eligible to the estate of their daughter late Dr.Kalyani, as well as their grand- daughter late Baby Keerthana.