VELLIKANNU versus R. SINGAPERUMAL AND ANR.

VELLIKANNU versus R. SINGAPERUMAL AND ANR.

Respondent No. 1 having murdered his father is disqualified under Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act from inheriting the property, and is deemed to have predeceased his father. Since Appellant’s right as widow flows from the disqualified Respondent No. 1, she too is disqualified from inheriting the property. Neither Respondent No. 1 nor Appellant can claim the estate under Hindu Succession Act or Mitakshara Law.

Parties
Appellant: Vellikannu; Respondent No. 1: R. Singaperumal; Respondent No. 2: R. Singaperumal and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Madras High Court Judgment Dated 6.3.97 in S.a.no.773 of 1983
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disqualification From Succession, Coparcenary Property Succession, Effect of Murder on Inheritance, Mitakshara School of Hindu Law
Hindu Succession Family Law Disqualification From Succession Coparcenary Property Succession Effect of Murder on Inheritance Mitakshara School of Hindu Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vellikannu

Appellant

R. Singaperumal

Respondent No. 1

R. Singaperumal and Anr.

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Madras High Court Judgment Dated 6.3.97 in S.a.no.773 of 1983

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Respondent No. 1 having murdered his father is disqualified from inheriting coparcenary property as per Hindu Succession Act.
  2. 2 Whether Appellant, as wife of Respondent No. 1, can inherit the properties as widow after Respondent No. 1’s disqualification.

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent No. 1 having murdered his father is disqualified under Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act from inheriting the property, and is deemed to have predeceased his father. Since Appellant’s right as widow flows from the disqualified Respondent No. 1, she too is disqualified from inheriting the property. Neither Respondent No. 1 nor Appellant can claim the estate under Hindu Succession Act or Mitakshara Law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff (Appellant) is not entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased Ramasamy Konar.
  • Judgment and decree of the lower courts set aside.