In Vellikannu v. R. Singaperumal Case, the application of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act has been considered in the following case, as well as several ancillary concerns such as admissibility as evidence, the judgement of a criminal court, and the question of motive, among others, in the analysis presented below.
FACTS:
- Both the appellant and the respondent are inhabitants of the Melur taluk in Tamil Nadu’s Madurai district. In 1970, the respondent married the appellant, and they were living as husband and wife in the respondent’s house when, two years later, on October 10, 1992, the respondent murdered his father, Ramasami Konar.
- The Additional Sessions Judge of Madurai found him guilty of violating Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life in jail under S.C. 26 of 1973. Following an appeal, the conviction was upheld, but the sentence was reduced.
- The plaintiff was freed from prison in July 1975 because of this. The appellant thereafter lived with the respondent for a while before being ejected from the home.
- Thereafter, a divorce had taken place between the two parties, and the appellant was remarried to another person
ISSUES:
- Is the judgement of the Honourable High Court of Madras to disinherit the applicant correct?
- Is it possible that such disinheritance would cover interest enlargement because of survivorship?
CONTENTIONS:
The point of contention in the case arose when the appellant filed a complaint at the District-Munsif Court, claiming that it entitled her to Ramasami Konar’s property before her second marriage.
She further claimed that it had disqualified the respondent as a legal successor under Section 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act and that only she had the right to claim the estates.
The appellant-wife maintained that the respondent-husband must be regarded as having died before the inheritance issue arose and that she, as the only legal successor living, would be entitled to the deceased’s whole assets. The appellant had requested a declaration of relief based on the same.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Bench: Ashok Bhan, A.K. Mathur
The respondent is barred from claiming his father’s property under Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. When a son cannot inherit, his whole stock, including his wife, is disinherited according to the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
As a result, the wife has no claim to the property because her husband, through whom she may have claimed, was disinherited.
The issue of dispossession or partition would be of no significance because the appellant-wife was found to have no such title, and the wife could not be deemed a co-owner with the respondent — a circumstance that would have established her claim for a division otherwise.
DECISION:
The Court said that in reading Sections 25 and 27; the murderer and his stock can have no link with the deceased’s inheritance. This is because, after survivorship is granted, a widow’s sole option for claiming the property is to represent her husband’s estate.
And she has no claim to his inheritance when he dies. Because of treaties and precedents, it was decided that it must disinherit even a murderer if he claims via survivorship and that it would bar him from any additional share because of the horrific deed he did. Only a claim by a person with a higher title might cause the respondent and the tenant to be evicted, according to the Court.
CONCLUSION:
It is now widely known that in the event of disqualification for murder, the property will pass to the intestate as if the murderer had died before the intestate. Even though it does not rule out the possibility of tracing a relationship back to the murderer, it rules out the possibility of tracing any titles or rights of succession back to him.
Found Vellikannu v. R. Singaperumal Case summary useful? We have a bunch of useful topics from family law that will help you in your preparation here >>> FAMILY LAW
Check out our YouTube Channel for free legal videos >>> LAW PLANET YT
