S. 25 Hindu Succession Act | Murder Accused Cannot Claim Inheritance Of Murdered Person's Property : Supreme Court
Hey there! For your CLAT prep, understanding how our legal principles play out in real cases is crucial. Here's a recent Supreme Court ruling you should know. So basically, the Court ruled that someone accused of murder can't inherit property from the person they allegedly murdered, even if there's a Will. This falls under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. What this really means is that the principle 'no man may benefit from his own wrong' is paramount. The Court clarified that for Section 25 to apply, a criminal conviction isn't required; the civil standard of 'preponderance of probabilities' is sufficient. This was in the case of MANJULA AND OTHERS VERSUS D.A. SRINIVAS. So for your exam, remember Section 25 HSA, the 'no benefit from wrong' maxim, and the lower proof standard in civil matters.
The Supreme Court recently disqualified a plaintiff from inheriting a property based on a Will executed by a deceased, after noting that the plaintiff was arrayed as an accused in the deceased's murder.
The Court disqualified the plaintiff by virtue of an operation of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which provides that a person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered.
The bar under Section 25 applies to a person who seeks to inherit the estate of the deceased through testamentary succession. The Court reasoned that“a person must not be permitted to profit from or take advantage of his own wrong. This principle is reflected in the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio and the rule that no man may benefit from his own wrong.”
The Court clarified that for the bar under Section 25 to operate, no actual conviction is required, as the provision does not make conviction a condition precedent.
“The provision imposes a civil consequence against a wrongdoer and the issue may be examined on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, independent of the strict standard of proof applicable to criminal prosecution.”, the court said.
The bench comprisingJustice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevanheard the case where the plaintiff, being a real owner of the suit property, purchased in the name of the deceased, K. Raghunath, sought testamentary succession based on the alleged Will executed by the deceased in the plaintiff's favour.
The plaintiff's suit seeking declaration of title and ownership based on the Will executed in his favour by the deceased, was contested by the defendant by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking a rejection of a plaint on the premise that the same was barred by law i.e., Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, as the plaintiff was arrayed as accused in a murder case of the deceased, who was ostensible owner of the suit property, from whom he sought testamentary succession.
The trial court allowed the defendant's plea to reject the plaint; however, the High Court reversed the same, prompting the defendants to move to the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored byJustice Mahadevanrestored the trial court's decision to reject the plaint at the threshold because of the plaint being barred by law under Section 25 of the HSA.
“In the present case, the Plaintiff has been accused of the murder of K. Raghunath and a CBI investigation is stated to be pending. The said fact has been suppressed by the Plaintiff in the pleadings. We have already held that a person guilty of suppression of material facts is not entitled to be heard and that the plaint is also liable to be rejected.”, the court observed.
“The bar under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies to both intestate and testamentary succession. A person accused of the murder of one from whom inheritance is claimed, is disentitled from asserting rights, not only under Section 25 but also on the principles of justice, fair play and equity. Strict proof is not indispensable in civil proceedings if the preponderance of probabilities points to commission of the offence...”,the court added.
Cause Title: MANJULA AND OTHERS VERSUS D.A. SRINIVAS
Also From Judgment:Property Purchased In Benami Transaction Can't Be Claimed By Real Owner On Basis Of Will Executed By Benamidar: Supreme Court