Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 149 views

    Family Law

    Uploaded by

    guytdy
    The Supreme Court held that: 1) When the sole male survivor had murdered his father, he incurred disqualification under the Hindu Succession Act and could not claim the coparcenary property by virtue of Mitakshara law. 2) As the son was deemed to have predeceased his father, his wife also could not succeed to the property which she claimed through her husband. 3) A person who commits murder is totally disinherited and disqualified from the deceased's estate, along with his whole stock, so the wife had no claim to the property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Family Law

    Uploaded by

    guytdy
    149 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court held that: 1) When the sole male survivor had murdered his father, he incurred disqualification under the Hindu Succession Act and could not claim the coparcenary property by virtue of Mitakshara law. 2) As the son was deemed to have predeceased his father, his wife also could not succeed to the property which she claimed through her husband. 3) A person who commits murder is totally disinherited and disqualified from the deceased's estate, along with his whole stock, so the wife had no claim to the property.

    Original Title

    Family Law.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court held that: 1) When the sole male survivor had murdered his father, he incurred disqualification under the Hindu Succession Act and could not claim the coparcenary property by virtue of Mitakshara law. 2) As the son was deemed to have predeceased his father, his wife also could not succeed to the property which she claimed through her husband. 3) A person who commits murder is totally disinherited and disqualified from the deceased's estate, along with his whole stock, so the wife had no claim to the property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    149 views2 pages

    Family Law

    Uploaded by

    guytdy
    The Supreme Court held that: 1) When the sole male survivor had murdered his father, he incurred disqualification under the Hindu Succession Act and could not claim the coparcenary property by virtue of Mitakshara law. 2) As the son was deemed to have predeceased his father, his wife also could not succeed to the property which she claimed through her husband. 3) A person who commits murder is totally disinherited and disqualified from the deceased's estate, along with his whole stock, so the wife had no claim to the property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

    Class & Section: BBA LLB 4A


    Subject: Family LawII
    Code : LLB 202
    Faculty: Ms. Anubha Jain

    CASE STUDY
    Name of the Case : Vellikannu v. R. Singaperumal & Anr (AIR 2005 SC 2587)
    Date of Judgment: 06/05/2005
    Supreme Court of India
    Bench: Justice Ashok Bhan, Justice A.K. Mathur

    Brief Facts:

     The schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of late Ramasami Konar and the
    first defendant was the only son of Ramasami Konar and the plaintiff is the wife of the
    first defendant. Wife of Ramasami Konar was already divorced and married with some
    other person and was residing separately.
     It is alleged that the first defendant in the suit married the plaintiff- appellant and both
    were residing as husband and wife. On 10th October, 1972 the first defendant murdered
    his father, Ramasami Konar and was convicted under Section 302 IPC for life
    imprisonment. The conviction of the first defendant was confirmed by the High Court but
    the High Court recommended the Government to reduce the sentence to the period
    already undergone.
     The first defendant was released in July, 1975. Since the first defendant murdered his
    father, he was not entitled to succeed to the estate of his deceased father and as such the
    claim of the plaintiff was that she alone was entitled to all the properties left by the
    deceased Ramasami Konar. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant must be
    deemed to have predeceased as provided under Section 25 read with Section 27 of the
    Hindu Succession Act.
     She claimed to be the widow of the first defendant and claimed to be the owner of all the
    properties left by Ramasami Konar as coparcener. After the release of the first defendant
    from the prison, first defendant lived with the plaintiff for some time but after some time
    she was driven out of the house. Second defendant is already impleaded in the suit as
    tenant claiming under first defendant. Plaintiff, therefore, prayed that she may be granted
    the relief of declaration as she is entitled to inherit the entire estate of the deceased
    Ramasami Konar. 

    Issue:
    1. Whether, when the sole male survivor had incurred the disqualification can he still claim
    the property by virtue of Mitakshara School of Hindu Law?
    2. Whether his wife who succeeds through the husband can succeed to the property?

    Relevant Acts/ Statutes: 


     The Hindu Succession Act,1956
     Indian Penal Code,1860
    Judgment:
     As per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if a male Hindu dies after
    commencement of the Act, an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve
    by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance
    with the Act.
     The son acquires by birth or adoption a vested interest in all coparcenary property as a
    member of a joint family. The ownership of coparcenary is in the whole body of
    coparceners. The share of a member of coparceners may fluctuate from time to time but
    his right by way of survivorship in coparcenary property in Mitakshara law is a settled
    proposition.
     The Court answered above mentioned issues in the negative. As was held in Kenchava
    Kom Sanyellappa Hosmani and Anr. v. Girimallappa Channappa Somasagar
    (AIR1924PC209), the murdered should be treated as non-existent and not as one who
    forms the stock for a fresh line of descent. This principle totally disinherits the son who
    has murdered his father.
     This position of law was incorporated by way of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act,
    1956. Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act makes it clear that if any person is
    disqualified from inheriting the property under the Act, it shall be deemed as if such
    person had died before the intestate. That means he will be deemed to have predeceased
    him.
     A person who is guilty of committing the murder cannot be treated to have any
    relationship whatsoever with deceased’s estate. Once the son is totally disinherited then
    his whole stock stands disinherited. The First Defendant is totally disqualified by virtue
    of Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act and as such the wife can have no
    better claim in the property of the deceased.
     Thus,a person who is guilty of committing the murder cannot be treated to have any
    relationship whatsoever with deceased’s estate  and when the son cannot succeed then the
    wife who succeeds to the property through the husband cannot also lay a claim to the
    property of her father-in-law.

    You might also like