Disqualification of murderer
mukund
(Querist) 11 August 2013
This query is : Resolved
one brother has abetted murder of another brother.
can the murderer brother be disqualified from the ancestral property u/s 25 of HSA ?
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 11 August 2013
was conviction Final???
???
mukund
(Querist) 11 August 2013
It is not necessary for the application of this section that the person Disqualified should have been convicted of murder or abetment of murder
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 11 August 2013
Yes but only when he is convicted. Prior to that he is disqualified.
mukund
(Querist) 11 August 2013
Mr Barman
will you please clarify in detail?
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 11 August 2013
Old wine in new bottle.Same case where you have got a photostat letter.Were exploring how and where to file FIR.
OLD THREAD LEFT.
Now exploring succession.
WHY SHOULD YOUR QUERY BE NOT BRANDED AS ACADEMIC WHEN YOU ARE SEEKING INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 25 HSA where disqualification is with regard to property of the murdered or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which he committed or abetted the commission of the murder.So where A B C are brothers with ancestral property ,A is issueless but B and C are not,B abets C and C murders A,
under s.25 HSA ,B & C can not inherit A's share which could have devolved upon them otherwise.
But this all shall apply to a convict and not to accused.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 11 August 2013
He himself seems a lawyer and is contacting here with lawyer.Every day he has queries.
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 11 August 2013
I think It is not bad if an advocate asks questions at this forum.
In my opinion it is not necessary that to prove a person a murderer, he should be convicted by a Court. The word used is murderer is disqualified (not convicted murder disqualified). It may be different thing that a conviction is an easy proof of fact of once being murderer.
The murderer is disqualified to inherit only the property which he was entitled after the death of victim only. It does not disqualify him to inherit others property.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 11 August 2013
I too agree with Mr.J K Agrawal that"It is not bad if an advocate asks questions at this forum."
And i try to accommodate everybody to the best of my ability.
Without deviation i would like Mr.JK Agrawal
to enlighten me whom he would call a murderer "an accused" or "convicted" or some other definition he knows or has invented ?
Waiting Sir!
we both are on line!
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 11 August 2013
There is nothing wrong to answer an advocate's query.
But the practice should be avoided when a professional makes it a point to post query every now and then whenever he faces a problem.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 11 August 2013
I know you share with me Mr.Barman!
But i wanted to know the fantastic definition of a murderer only Mr.JK Agrawal
can tell me?
He was on line yet he avoided why?
One must not contradict any opinion without
cogent and justified reason.
While at one hand he is advocating patronage on the other hand he is confusing all of us with his fantasies of tiredness.
i say so because i remember his remark once made here that he comes here only to relax
when he gets tired of his work in chamber.
That suggests he advises in voidness,yet claims over them who advises sincerely.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 11 August 2013
If the attitude of the querist is like told by Mr. Singh, none hsould address his queries.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 11 August 2013
That is an other thing Makkad Ji!
We first need a consensus whom we would call murderer in context of section 25 of HSA?
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 13 August 2013
I do agree with Mr. singh that a consensu is at least required to call a person as murderer prior to moving ahead. I do invite all other experts to air their opinion over this issue.
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 13 August 2013
Dear Sirs
I respectfully agree to all the experts and my common sense says that How one can say other one a murderer, unless he is convicted by a competent Court of Law.
But at the same time I humbly put my doubts to the learned experts that in a Civil Proceedings a Judgment of Criminal Court is not relevant at all under section 43 of the Evidence Act. The Court even can not keep the judgment in file. It is liable to be return to the party producing it before the Civil Court.
It means that for a civil court, dealing the issue of succession, will neither look at the judgment of conviction not it will look at judgment of acquittal. The both situations are non est for that Court. Even in his judgment he can not utter about a single word of the Judgment of Criminal Trial.
That is why i distinguished among a Murderer and a Convicted Murderer and An Acquitted Murderer and an Accused Murderer.
That is why I can say that one should be 'Murderer' and not a 'Convicted Murderer' to satisfy the requirements of S 25 of HSA.
I think I am more clear with my friend.
