(Published in Supreme Court Journal, Hyderabad, 2007, VOL. 3, pages 1-16)
“Is it ever possible for a person who commits murder (or shall we say convicted of murder) to take the property left on Intestacy or under the Will of the person murdered” will be the main focus of this Article.
Brief Introduction of the Main Topic in PART I, The High Court decisions given after the Act came into force in PART II, The Law prior to 1956 in PART III, Re-examination of the Criminal Cases already decided by the Civil Court in Part IV, Introducing independent evidence in proceedings under Sec.25 in Part V and finally the Corresponding State of Law in England in Part VI, respectively, were the main topics of this Article.
PART I
INTRODUCTION TO THE TOPIC
I would like to start this Article by referring to the provision given in Sec. 25 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’) and also by referring to the different rulings given by different High Courts.
The full text of Sec.25 is as follows and it can be split in two parts.
Murdered Disqualified
“A person who commits or abets the commission of the murder 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”
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, ‘X’ is having a son through his first wife. After the death his first ‘X’ married ‘W’ and a daughter was born to her. ‘Second wife instigates Son to kill his father. He kills him. He is disqualified. She is also disqualified as an abettor.
Coming to the second part, a murderer or an abettor of murder is disqualified from taking any other property when the killing has been carried out in furtherance of succession to the property. Here the disqualification is not direct and the emphasis is laid on the words “or other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of murder”
For example, ‘X’ is expected to die within a year as he was suffering with serious illness. He has a minor daughter ‘D’ and a brother ‘B’. ‘B’ kills the girl. Since this killing was carried out to accelerate the process of succession to take the property of ‘X’, ‘B’ may be disqualified though he has not killed his brother.
In yet another example, Mr. X is having an adopted son ‘S’, a naturally born daughter ‘D’ and his brother B. B instigates S to kill his father. S kills his father and is disqualified. Unfortunately D also died in accident after one year. As against B, the rule of disqualification may become problematic if B has no intention to accelerate the process of succession but had great animosity towards his brother X for not adopting his son P in preference to S and so he has encouraged S to kill his father. There is reliable evidence that before, during and after adoption there was confrontation between X and B and the relatives and friends have pacified them.
Will this evidence make any difference to the rule of disqualification? No doubt B is responsible for the death of X at the hands of his son. No doubt the son is disqualified under first part. The disqualification of B is highly debatable as the most important requirement that the abetment to murder was carried out by B in furtherance of succession is totally missing.
Therefore, the crux of the problem revolves round the words “commits or abets the commission of murder” found in the section. When can a person be declared to have committed the murder is the most important point. It can surely be said that on conviction for murder, he or she can be declared to come within the Disqualification Rule, provided, as declared in the Section, the killing is carried out in furtherance of succession.
When the criminal act of the heir happens, not to be murder or at least, the abetment to murder, an inquiry to find out whether such act was carried out to accelerate the process of succession is a futile exercise.
Follow Sri Chadalavada Raghuraman, Faculty of Law, Pendekanti Law College at http://csraghuraman.goforthelaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment