Inheritance with criminal case pending

@Querist,

 

Unless convicted in the same, You would face no problem regarding property.

 

 

Note-This reply should be taken as per the declaration given in my profile page.

 

Thanks,

Regards,

Not at all. 

Even if you are convicted in this accident case the law does not precludes you from inhitering the property, Law bar inheritance of property only of that individual when the person is accused and convicted of the offence of 302/307 against victim whose property he is likely to inherit.

I vehemently differ to the opinion of Mr. Surjit in wake of various decisions given by high courts where the accused convicted under section 304 was disqualified of the right to the property.

 

Ref-

 

1.M.Nagarajan  vs V.M.Nagammal [Link ---->https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/40517795/]

2.Ram Chatterjee And Anr. vs Smt. Tapati Mukherjee And Anr. [(2002) 3 CALLT 208 HC]

In the first reference given here,the court made the following remarks

 

7. It is an admitted position that the word "murder" is not defined in the Hindu succession Act, It appears that S. 25 was introduced in the Hindu succession Act practically to give statutory sanction to the view expressed by the privy council in kanchawa v. Girimallappa AIR 1924 PC. 209 while dealing with such a contention the privy Council; observed that there is much to be said in support of the principles of jurisprudence which can be traced in Hindu Law, which would warrant in inference that a man cannot take advantage of his own wrong. The privy council further observed that this principle is the principle of equity, justice and good conscience, which disqualifies and excludes the murderer from inheriting any interest in the property of the person murdered. The privy council also held that the murderer in such case should be treated as non-existent and not as one who forms the stock for fresh line of descent. Thus, it appears that S.s 25 and 27 were enacted by the legislature to give statutory approval to the principles of equity, justice and good conscience which disqualifies murder from inheriting the property of the person murdered . Therefore, the word and phrases used in S. 25 will have to be construed in the light of these principles viz. The principles of equity, justice and good conscience. This is also the well established principle of public policy.

 

10. It is well settled that the word not defined in the Act but a word of every day use must be construed in popular sense as understood in common parlance . and not in a technical sense. In popular sense the word "murder" means unlawful homicide or unlawful killing of human being. In popular parlance the word "murder" is not used or understood in the technical sense as defined in S. 300 of the I.P.C. Will result in defeating the very object of the legislation. It will also run counter to the well established principles of equity, justice and good conscience, or the paramount principle of public policy enshrined in S. 25 of Hindu succession Act. I am fortified in this view by the decision of the Madras High Court in Sarvanabhava v. Sallemmal : (1972)2MLJ49 wherein the Madras High court has observed as under : " Almost all systems of law have recognised that a person guilty of homicide cannot succeed to the property of his victim. Section 25 of the Hindu succession Act gives statutory recognition to the above proposition.";

 

12. In my opinion this is the correct approach for interpreting the provisions of section 25 of the Act, which incorporates a paramount principle of public policy based on principle of public policy based on principles of justice, equity and good conscience, so that the person will not be able to take the advantage of his own crime. In this context it is pertinent to note that the words used are "commits murder or abets commission of murder" and not "is convicted of an offence of murder and not "is convicted of an offence of murder or abetment of offence of murder" Therefore, it is clear that the legislature has used the term "murder" in S. 25 of the Hindu Succession Act not in a technical sense as defined in S. 300 of the I.P.C. ., but in a wider and popular sense, which must include in its import even culpable homicide or unlawful manslaughter. It is neither possible not desirable to lay down general rule in this behalf, because to some extent it must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

 

In view of following remarks and decisions of the high court,If the person in question, gets convicted under section 304A,he may be disqualified from the right to property.

 

Thanks,

Regards,

Thanks, just to clarify, it was for my knowledge and the accident has nothing to do with my family. It was a random outside accident. So I guess I have nothing to worry about in the future

@Querist,

 

I know persons who come here for time pass.You don't need to mention that exclusively. If you were under trial,you wouldn't have been asking questions in an online legal forum.

 

Quote from me for you and like you-

 

'Law is an ass yet understands the simpleton's behavior and proves his idiosyncrasy beyond doubt'

 

Thanks,

Regards,