Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.44 seconds)
Nannepuneni Seetharamaiah And Ors. vs Nannepuneni Ramakrishnaiah on 24 February, 1969 cites

Kenchava Sanyellappa Hosmani vs Girimalappa Channappa Somasagar on 19 June, 1924

The Privy Council, in Kenchava v. Girimallappa Channappa, 51 Ind App 368 = (AIR 1924 PC 209) also held that even if the Hindu Law did not disqualify the murderer form succeeding to the estate he was so disqualified upon the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, Statutory effect has been given to the aforesaid view by introducing the two Ss. 25 and 27 in the Hindu Succession Act on grounds of public policy and principles of justice and morality. Therefore, the disqualification's prescribed by Section 25 and 27 come into play and operate against the plaintiff inheriting or deriving any beneficial interest in the property possessed or held by this father. I therefore find no merits in the cross-objections and accordingly dismiss them.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Kanamathareddi Kanna Reddy vs Kanamatha Reddy Venkata Reddy on 9 October, 1964

11. In order to apply the disqualification under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession, Act, it is not necessary in may opinion that a person who committed the murder or abetted the commission of murder must also have been convicted of the offence of murder or of abetment of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. That the plaintiff had participated in the murderous attack on his father along with A- 2 and A-4 in that case, who were convicted of murder, is not in dispute. It is because of the nature of injures inflicted by him on his father and the variations found in the 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 not display 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 o 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 handed or to be shut behind the prison bars for life, to derive advantage or beneficial interest from the very heinous act committed by him.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 22 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1