Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.34 seconds)Section 25 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Indian Succession Act, 1925
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Special Marriage Act, 1954
Kenchava Sanyellappa Hosmani vs Girimalappa Channappa Somasagar on 19 June, 1924
27. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and judgments, even in the absence
of specific provision in Indian Succession Act, for
disqualification of a murderer to succeed to the
estate of his own victim, this Court draws authority
from the Judgment of the Privy Council in
KENCHAVVA KOM SANYELLAPPA HOSMANI AND
ANOTHER vs GIRIMALLAPPA CHANNAPPA
SOMSAGAR referred to supra and by virtue of
Article 141 of Constitution (Law of Precedents) holds
that the appellant is not entitled to succeed to the
estate of Shakereh Khaleeli,
whom he murdered.
Vedanayaga Mudaliar vs Vedammal on 12 April, 1904
" 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,
23
and should not be introduced into
discussion.
Vellikannu vs R. Singaperumal & Anr on 6 May, 2005
parents of the minor child would be the sole
persons having the right of inheritance from
the minor female child Baby Keerthana
under Section 15(1)(e) of the said Act.
Learned senior counsel claims this
entitlement by relying on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Vellikannu vs.
R.Singaperumal and another reported in
2005 (6) SCC 622, wherein it has been held
that if a male survivor is disqualified to
inherit the property of the person whom he
murdered, then anyone who succeeds
through the murderer cannot lay a claim
in the property. The relevant paragraphs
dealing with this controversy are as under:-