Criminal conviction bars inheritance in civil case under Hindu Succession Act

Vellikannu Versus R. Singaperumal and Ors.

Vellikannu Versus R. Singaperumal and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Whether the judgment in the criminal case is conclusive on the question of exclusion from inheritance.
2. Whether exclusion from inheritance covers enlargement of interest by survivorship under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Conclusiveness of Criminal Judgment on Inheritance Exclusion
The High Court addressed whether the judgment in the criminal case, which convicted the first defendant for murdering his father, is conclusive on the question of exclusion from inheritance. The court held that the criminal court's judgment could be considered in the civil proceedings for inheritance. The main question was whether the plaintiff could inherit the properties from her deceased father-in-law, Ramasami Konar, given the implications of Sections 25, 27, 6, and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. The court concluded that the plaintiff could not claim as a widow of the son of Ramasami Konar because the first defendant, having murdered his father, was disqualified from inheriting the estate.

Issue 2: Exclusion from Inheritance and Enlargement by Survivorship
The court examined whether the exclusion from inheritance under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act would also cover the enlargement of interest by survivorship under Section 6. It was established that the properties in question were joint family properties governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The court noted that under Mitakshara Law, the son acquires a vested interest in coparcenary property by birth. However, the first defendant, having murdered his father, was disqualified from inheriting any property from him. The court referred to the principles of justice, equity, and public policy, stating that the murderer should be treated as non-existent for inheritance purposes.

The court further clarified that the disqualification of the first defendant under Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act extends to his wife (the plaintiff), as she could only claim the property through her husband. Since the husband was disqualified, the wife could not inherit the property either. The court cited various authoritative texts and previous judgments to support this interpretation, emphasizing that a murderer is disqualified from inheriting the property of the person they murdered and cannot be considered a fresh stock of descent.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision that the plaintiff is not entitled to inherit the estate of Ramasami Konar. The court confirmed that the first defendant's disqualification from inheriting his father's estate under Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act also disqualified the plaintiff from claiming any share in the property. The judgment reinforced the principle that a murderer cannot benefit from their crime by inheriting the victim's property, and this disqualification extends to those who would claim through the murderer.