_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - Vellikannu vs. R. Singaperumal and Ors
Case No. - AIR 2005 SC 2587
Relevant Acts and Section -
Section 25 and 27 Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Parties Involved -
Petitioner: Vellikannu
Respondent: R. Singaperumal and Ors
Facts of the Case
Schedule properties are under the ownership of the late Ramasami Konar, and defendant No.1 was the only son of Ramasami Konar, and the plaintiff is the wife of the defendant No.1. Ramasami Konar's wife had already divorced and remarried and was living separately. It is suspected that the defendant No.1 in the case married the complainant, and they both lived as husband and wife.
On October 10, 1972, the defendant No.1 killed his father, Ramasami Konar, and was sentenced under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the first accused, but the High Court recommended that the Government reduce the sentence to an earlier date. The defendant No.1 was released in July 1975. Since the defendant No.1 killed his father, he had no right to inherit his deceased father's estate. As a result, the plaintiff claimed that she was the sole rightful owner of all the remaining property of the late Ramasami Konar.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 must be treated as a precedent provided under Section 25, along with Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act. She said she was the widow of the first accused and said she owned all the properties left by Ramasami Konar as chief of police. After the release of the defendant No.1 from prison, the defendant No.1 stayed with the complainant for a while but was later evicted from the house. In this case, the defendant No.2 has already been empowered as the applicant's employer under the defendant No.1. The plaintiff, therefore, has prayed that she be given the opportunity to be declared as she has the right to inherit the entire estate of the deceased Ramasami Konar.
Contrary to this, it was argued by the defendant No.1 that the case could not be maintained as the plaintiff was not legally heir to Ramasami Konar. It is alleged that all the buildings acquired by Ramasami were joint family buildings, and the defendant No.1 received the same for survival. The Trial Court by Order of March 31, 1980, stated that all the buildings are the combined family buildings of the late Ramasami Konar and the defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 is the tenant.
The first respondent who killed his father has no right to claim any ownership under Section 6, along with sections 25 & 27 of the Hindu Succession Act. According to that, he has the right to a half-determination and consequently granted it to the plaintiff. The case was heard by defendant No.1. The Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the acquittal of the Trial Court but reversed the decision so that it could not be considered a first instance. The Lower Court also ruled that the defendant No.1 should be treated as absent at all. The plaintiff became the heir of Class I under Schedule 1 of the Hindu Succession Act and was entitled to participate in that land. Appeal dismissed. Disappointed by this, the defendant No.1 chose a second appeal before the Supreme Court.
But the main question raised by the High Court was whether the plaintiff could inherit these lands from the estate of his late ancestor, Ramasami Konar. What is the effect of Section 25, Section 27 read by Section 6 and Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act?
It is undisputed that the buildings of Ramasami Konar were family property combined when defendant No.1 was one of the members and the groups were governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law.
An educated Single Judge of the Supreme Court, after hearing the parties and considering the appropriate law on the matter, concluded that the opinion taken by both lower courts could not be upheld. It was only by one Judge who learned that the plaintiff could not claim to be the widow of Ramasamy Konar's son. It was noted that the complainant could not claim one portion of the share in that property which was the property of the copyists under proviso to section 6 of the Hindu Compliance Act. It was also recognized that he was entitled to a share of the inheritance as long as the deceased father and son did not divide the property.
The first respondent/respondent No 1 here cannot be said to have received any share from the victim (Ramasamy Konar). The Applicant can only apply as a widow if there is a succession of the victim's estate. In the absence of a sequence, the provision of recognition that the defendant No.1 would be presumed to have died before the victim (his father) also became ineffective. It would not require her to be the widow of her deceased son. It was also held that Section 6 of the Hindu Compliance Act would not apply. The principle of justice, equality, and public policy will apply, and the plaintiff cannot be considered as a new interest stock. The defendant No.1 will be treated as absent as he never existed. Therefore, the plaintiff also cannot claim to be his widow. It was also noted that as the plaintiff claims to be the widow of defendant No.
The judge granted the appeal of defendant No.1, and the decision and decision of the lower courts were set aside. The case was dismissed. Hence the current appeal.
Issues of the Case
Whether Ex.A.2 judgment in the Criminal case is conclusive on the question of exclusion from inheritance in the present proceedings?
Whether the exclusion from inheritance would cover enlargement of interest by survivorship, in the light of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act?
Arguments of the Petitioner
The petitioner's legal counsel tried to persuade the claimant's sole survivor of Joint Hindu Property as her husband was denied, she under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, is entitled to inherit the entire estate as one surviving member of the Copyright Property studied by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act as a Class heir.
Arguments of the Respondents
In contrast, the defendant's learned attorney for the defendant stated that this disenfranchisement applied to the son applies equally to the wife's case as he claims inheritance as a result of her marriage to the defendant.
In order to justify the contention, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Sections 6, 8, 25, and 27 of the Act.
Judgment of the Case
Given the several decisions of this Court, it seems that defendant No.1 and the plaintiff who was married to Defendant No.1 were members of a joint Hindu family. If the respondent had not acted improperly, they would have inherited property according to the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. But the question is when only the surviving male intervening in the execution can continue to claim the property for the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law? If he cannot afford the property in a way that survives, then the question is, can his successful wife be successful in that property? Our answer to this question is incorrect. In fact, prior to the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, sections such as 25 & 27 were non-existent, but the killer of his father was barred from the principle of justice, equality, and a good conscience and as a measure of public policy.
This legal position was established in Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as said above, which clearly states that a person who kills or leaves a murder commission will be barred from obtaining the estate of the murdered person or any other property.
The Legal Framework on Matters and Reasons has referred to the decision of the Executive Council that the killer should not be considered a stock of the new generation but should be considered non-existent. That means that a person guilty of murder cannot be cured of having anything to do with the deceased's property.
Now, because of the facts of the current case, the result of Sections 25 and 27 is that defendant No.1 cannot inherit his father's estate as he killed him based on justice, equality with a good conscience, and the burning stock of his genealogy ended there. When a son dies completely, his real estate remains as an heir or wife or son. Defendant-respondent No.1 son himself is totally disqualified on the virtue of sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Following Act. As a result, the wife is unable to get a better claim on the deceased's property, Ramasamy Konar.
Similar Cases
References
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " Is Murdering Your Father A Faster Way To Get The Family Property?" by clicking the button below.
Comments