Mumbai: The Bombay high court recently held that a person convicted for causing dowry death would also be “disqualified” to inherit the property of the deceased woman under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Under section 25 of the Act, a person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the victim or any other property in furtherance of the succession. The Act was enacted to amend, codify and secularise the law relating to intestate or unwilled succession, among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs.
The high court has, thereby, interpreted a broader meaning of the term “murder” as specified in the Hindu Succession Act, which disqualifies the “murderer” from inheriting the victim's properties.
“A person who has caused dowry death of a woman, falls within the dragnet of the disqualification prescribed under section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if it is proved to the satisfaction of the civil court,” observed Justice NJ Jamadar on July 2.
The judge said that the disqualification incorporated in section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is based on public policy that a person who causes death of the person whose property he seeks to inherit, cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own felonious act.
The disqualification is premised on the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. “The avowed object to disqualify such a person was to disallow a person to accelerate his inheritance by causing death of the person whose property he seeks to inherit,” Justice Jamadar added in a detailed order.
The HC was hearing a petition filed by city-based Pawan Jain seeking a succession certificate in respect of certain debts and securities belonging to his married daughter, Sejal Jain. Sejal died in February 2014, a few months after her marriage to Noida-based Anurag Jain.
The sessions court convicted Anurag, his father Swatantrakumar Jain and mother Kamla Jain for causing dowry death and sentenced them to life in prison. They were convicted under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dealing with dowry deaths.
Pawan Jain hence filed the petition contending that his daughter’s closest legal heir, her husband and in-laws, were disqualified from inheriting her properties.
However, the testamentary department of the high court, raised an objection to the tenability of the petition stating that the victim’s husband was alive and was not convicted for “murder” charges. It stated that Section 304-B of the IPC cannot be equated with a murderer, who is disqualified under the Hindu Succession Act.
Rejecting the objection, Justice Jamdar said that although the term “murder” is not defined in the Hindu Succession Act, the definition of Section 300 of the IPC, which deals with murder, is a technical definition and is meant for imposing punishment. Hence, it cannot be readily imported to construe the term “murder” under section 25.
“Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 do not operate in the same field,” Justice Jamadar said. He added, “Therefore, the term, ‘murder’ ought to receive its ordinary and common parlance connotation”, when it comes to dealing with the disqualification prescribed under the Hindu Succession Act.
“In the context of the disqualification under section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there does not appear much qualitative difference in the offences punishable under section 302 and 304-B,” the judge underlined.
