Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the widow of a son who was disqualified from inheriting his father's estate for having murdered him could claim the property of the father through the son under the Hindu Succession Act.
Analysis: The property was found to be Mitakshara coparcenary property, but the son's murder of his father attracted the statutory bar under Section 25 and the deeming fiction in Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A person so disqualified is treated as having predeceased the intestate and cannot be treated as a stock of descent. Since the son himself could not succeed, the widow could not derive any better title through him. The proviso to Section 6 and the rules of succession under Section 8 did not assist the appellant because the foundation of her claim was the deceased husband's prohibited title.
Conclusion: The widow had no right to inherit the estate through the murderer-son and the claim failed.
Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the suit was affirmed and the appeal failed because the statutory disqualification of the son also defeated the derivative claim of his wife.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a coparcener is statutorily disqualified from inheritance for murdering the intestate, he is treated as predeceasing the deceased and no succession can be claimed through him by his wife or other persons deriving title solely through him.