The Supreme Court (Known as ‘The SC’) was asked to give the ruling on the scope and extent of the applicability of the ‘Disqualification Rule’ (known as ‘The Rule’) to a ‘Murderer (and even to the kith and kin of the murderer) in matters of inheritance to the joint family properties under Section 25 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (known as ‘The Act’)
The facts that were responsible for bringing the main issue before the SC were that Appellant-Plaintiff, Mrs. Vallikannu[1]was the wife of Sri Singaperumal, Respondent-Defendant 1. Mr.Singaperumal was convicted for the murder of his father.[2]
Appellant claimed the entire property on the strength of the fact that ‘she was the only member left in the family’ as her husband was disqualified under the Act for killing his father.
The respondent also claimed the entire property of the father on the ‘doctrine of survivorship’ as per the opening paragraph of Sec. 6 of The Act.[3]
Both the lower courts held that ‘appellant is entitled to half share in the property left by her father-in-law’.[4]
The full text of Sec.25 with brief explanation is most appropriate before discussing the facts and the decision in Mrs. Vallikannu.
Section.25--Murdered Disqualified
“A person who commits or abets[5]the commission of the murder[6]shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered or other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder”
Sec. 25 can be split in two parts.
The first part of the section informs us that a person is disqualified from taking the property left behind by the deceased if such person commits or abets the commission of murder of the deceased from whom he or she would have naturally taken the property if such killing has not taken place.
In other words, a murderer or an abettor of murder is disqualified from taking any property left by his or her victim. Here under the first part, the Disqualification Rule (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Rule’in this article) is straight and direct.
For example, Mr.X is having an adopted son ‘S’ and naturally born daughter ‘D’. S kills his father. S is disqualified.
Again, ‘S’ is a son of ‘X’ born to his first wife. After the death of the first wife, ‘X’ married ‘W’ and had a daughter ‘D’ born to his second wife. ‘W’ instigates ‘S’ to kill his father. ‘S’ kills him. ‘S’ is disqualified. ‘W’ is also disqualified as an abettor.
http://www.goforthelaw.com/index.php/browsearticles/loadarticleview/127.html by Chadalavada Raghuraman - Follow him at http://www.csraghuraman.goforthelaw.com/
The facts that were responsible for bringing the main issue before the SC were that Appellant-Plaintiff, Mrs. Vallikannu[1]was the wife of Sri Singaperumal, Respondent-Defendant 1. Mr.Singaperumal was convicted for the murder of his father.[2]
Appellant claimed the entire property on the strength of the fact that ‘she was the only member left in the family’ as her husband was disqualified under the Act for killing his father.
The respondent also claimed the entire property of the father on the ‘doctrine of survivorship’ as per the opening paragraph of Sec. 6 of The Act.[3]
Both the lower courts held that ‘appellant is entitled to half share in the property left by her father-in-law’.[4]
The full text of Sec.25 with brief explanation is most appropriate before discussing the facts and the decision in Mrs. Vallikannu.
Section.25--Murdered Disqualified
“A person who commits or abets[5]the commission of the murder[6]shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered or other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder”
Sec. 25 can be split in two parts.
The first part of the section informs us that a person is disqualified from taking the property left behind by the deceased if such person commits or abets the commission of murder of the deceased from whom he or she would have naturally taken the property if such killing has not taken place.
In other words, a murderer or an abettor of murder is disqualified from taking any property left by his or her victim. Here under the first part, the Disqualification Rule (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Rule’in this article) is straight and direct.
For example, Mr.X is having an adopted son ‘S’ and naturally born daughter ‘D’. S kills his father. S is disqualified.
Again, ‘S’ is a son of ‘X’ born to his first wife. After the death of the first wife, ‘X’ married ‘W’ and had a daughter ‘D’ born to his second wife. ‘W’ instigates ‘S’ to kill his father. ‘S’ kills him. ‘S’ is disqualified. ‘W’ is also disqualified as an abettor.
http://www.goforthelaw.com/index.php/browsearticles/loadarticleview/127.html by Chadalavada Raghuraman - Follow him at http://www.csraghuraman.goforthelaw.com/
the most best side
ReplyDeleteMTECH COMPUTER