A MAN CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS OWN WRONG (WHETHER SECTION 25 OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT NEEDS AMENDMENT?

 

A MAN CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS OWN WRONG (WHETHER SECTION 25 OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT NEEDS AMENDMENT?

 

I. Introduction:

After an authoritative pronouncement by the Privy Counsel reported in in [Kanchawa Vs. Girimallappa], the legislature have enacted Section 25 in the Hindu Succession Act. By this article, the author intends to discuss the said provision of law and the need for amendment regarding the definition of “murder”. For easy reference, Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act is extracted hereunder:

Murderer Disqualified – A person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered, or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder.

II. Discussion :

It is to be pointed out that the term murder used in Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act has not been defined in the said Act. But from the object of the introduction of Section 25 in the said Act, we can safely come to a conclusion that murder means and includes the cause of death of a person. We cannot take the meaning of murder from Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, for the simple reason that the Penal Law has been enacted for the purpose of awarding punishment. Hence, the meaning of murder u/s. 300 IPC cannot be imported to Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act.

If we take the meaning of murder from Section 300 IPC., there will be confusion. A person convicted for an offence of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder may take a plea, that he has not been convicted for murder and so there is no bar to inherit the property of the deceased because the murderer alone is disqualified by Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act (30/1956). On the face of it, it appears to be sound argument. But, if the objects and reasons behind insertion of Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act is read conjointly and harmoniously with the Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act, we can safely come to a conclusion that the term murderer as defined in Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act means the person who are responsible for the cause for the death of the deceased and not directly caused to death.

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court had an occasion to deal with the similar question. In an appeal from the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court came to a conclusion that the defendant was convicted not for murder but for an offence u/s 304 IPC and hence he is not disqualified from inheriting the properties of the deceased. On appeal, the said view was reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the same is reported in – [Minoti Vs. Sushil Mohansingh Malik and another].

In yet another case, the defendant was convicted for an offence u/s. 324 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC it was held that even then the disqualifications prescribed by Section 25 and 27 will come into play and operate against the person inheriting or deriving of beneficial interest in the property of the deceased - 3[Nannepurani Seetha Ramaiah & others Vs Nannepunaeri Ramakrishiar]. Thus a word of everyday use, not defined in the Act, must be construed in popular sense, in common parlance and not in a technical sense.

Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act is amply clear that the word used in the Section is “commits murder or abets the commission murder” but not convicted for murder. Thus, it is made clear that when a person is responsible for a death of another person or abets death, he is disqualified from inheriting the property of the deceased. Now, the cases under the dowry death and abetment of suicide are alarmingly on the increase. Hence, the Parliament on its wisdom inserted Section 304-B in Indian Penal Code by Act 43/1986 with effect from 19.10.1986. Hence, the person responsible for the death of his wife and charged for an offence u/s. 304-B of IPC or charged u/s. 306 of IPC are also to be disqualified from inheriting the properties of the deceased. In the above Two Penal laws, the word ‘murder’ has not been used. But fact remains that the said Penal Law punishes for the commission of death of a person. So also it is just and necessary to make an amendment in Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act to the effect that murderer includes the persons charged u/s. 304-B and 306 IPC or the words similar to that has to be coined in order to avoid confusion and anomaly. The disqualification to inheritance operates not only on cause to death but also cause for death. For easy reference Section 304-B of IPC, Sections 305 and 306 of IPC are extracted hereunder:

304-B. Dowry Death – (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Abetment of suicide of child or insane person. – If any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with death or (imprisonment for life), or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

306. Abetment of suicide. – If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. In [Kenchavakon Sanyellappa Hosmani and another Vs Girimalappa Channappa Samasaga] it has been held that a murderer, even if not disqualified under Hindu Law from succeeding to the estate of the person whom he has murdered, is so disqualified upon principles of Justice, equity and good conscience. The murderer is not to be regarded as the stock of a fresh line of descendent but should be regarded as non-existent when the succession opens.

In the latest judgment by the Hon’ble Madras High Court elaborately dealt with the issues and given the verdict reported in [M. Nagarajan Vs V.M.Nagammal]. It is held that if the deceased government servant or an employee of the public sector undertaking had in his credit a considerable amount towards general Provident Fund or there is a sum assured in the event of death to be paid by LIC, if the murderer who is disqualified to inherit the property of the person murdered u/s. 25 of Hindu Succession Act has to be held as not entitled to the service and death benefits of the deceased.

Whether finding of Criminal Court is binding on the Civil Court

[Anil Behari ghosh Vs Smt.Latika Bala dassi]

[Mst Biro and another Vs Banta Singh]

In the above case it has been held that the decision of criminal court is only relevant to show that there was a criminal trial and it ended in conviction, but it is not evidence of fact that the person was the murderer, the judgment of criminal court is also not binding the Civil Court.

Whether Sec 25 of Hindu Succession Act, operates only in case of inheritance or it covers testamentary also

A executed a will in favour of B ,B killed A whether B is entitled to property of A on the strength of the will executed by A, whether 25 of Hindu Succession Act, disqualifies B .On the points two cases were decided

(1)[Lati Kabala Dasai Vs Anil Bihari]

(2)[Saravanabhawa Vs Sellammal].

It has been decided that there is no distinction between inheritance and succession to the property of the deceased. Hence, Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act, operates to disqualify him.

Whether taking meaning from another Act is sound and correct

In order to appreciate and to give meaning for a term defined in a particular Act, the objects and reasons to be taken into consideration and it is not sound principle to get meaning from another Act, unless both are PARI-MATERIA.

Words and phrases used in Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act, will have to be construed in the light of the principles viz., Principles of equity, justice and good conscience.

The above view has been approved in the following cases.

1) [Lawrence Arthur Adamson others Vs Malborne & Metro Politian Board]

2) [Minoti Vs SUshil Mohan Singh & others]

3) [Board of Muslim wakfs Rajesthan Vs Badha Kishan and others] Thus meaning of murder as contemplated u/s 300 IPC ought not to be taken to appreciate the word murder used in Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act.

When the husband is disqualified u/s. 25 of Hindu Succession Act, the wife cannot succeed by virtue of Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act and this point has been elaborately dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in [Vellikannu Vs. R. Singaperumal and another]  

Thus, to avoid confusion as discussed above it is right time to make suitable amendment in Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act.