VELLIKANNU versus R. SINGAPERUMAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 160 · Decided: 06-05-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
VELLIKANNU 
v. 
R. SINGAPERUMAL AND ANR. 
MAY 6, 2005 
[ASHOK BHAN AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956--Sections 25 and 27 rlw Sections 6 and 
8-Coparcenery property-Succession-Disqualification-Respondent No.1 
C murdered his father, who died intestate-Deceased was already divorced-He 
was survived by Respondent No. I- his only son and the sole male survivor and 
Appellant- the daughter-in-law-Properties of the deceased were joint family 
properties and the parties were governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu 
Law-Question of succession-Held: Respondent no. I having murdered his 
father, will be deemed to have pre-deceased him and would be disqualified 
D from inheriting the properties left by him as coparcener--Since the right of 
Appellant flows as wife of Respondent No.I, she too cannot inherit the said 
properties claiming as widow of Respondent No.I. 
Respondent No.I murdered his father and was convicted under 
Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment. High Court confirmed the conviction 
E but recommended the Government to reduce the .sentence to the period 
already undergone. Respondent No.I was subsequently released from 
prison. 
The deceased was already divorced. He died intestate survived by 
Respondent No.I, his only son and Appellant, the daughter-in-law. The 
F properties of the deceased were joint family properties and the parties were 
governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. 
The questions which arose for consideration in the present appeal 
are whether Respondent no.I having murdered his father, will be deemed 
G to have pre-deceased him and would be disqualified from inheriting the 
properties left by him as coparcener and that since the right of Appellant 
flows as wife of Respondent No.I, she too cannot inherit the said properties 
claiming as widow of Respondent No.I. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
I~ 
VELLIKANNU v. R. SINGAPERUMAL 
161 
HELD: 1. As per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 if a A 
male Hindu dies after commencement of the Act, an interest in a 
Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by survivorship upon the 
surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with the Act. 
In the present case, the concurrent finding of the fact is that the deceased 
was governed by Mitakshara Law and the property was the coparcenary B 
property. But he died intestate. Therefore, as per Section 6, the property 
shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the 
coparcenary and not by Section 6 of the Act and at the same time there 
is proviso to Section which qualifies the main Section that if deceased left 
a surviving female relative specified in class I of the Schedule or a male 
relative specified in that class -who claims through such female, the C 
interest of deceased in Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve 
by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be and not by 
survivorship. (167-D-E-F) 
2. So far as the rights of coparceners under the Mitakshara Law are 
concerned, the son acquires by birth or adoption a vested interest in all D 
coparcenery property whether ancestral or not and whether acquired 
before or after his birth or adoption, as the case may be, as a member of 
a joint family. A member of l!Oparcenery acquires a right in the property 
by birth. His share may fluctuate from time to time but his right by 
way of survivorship in copracenary property in Mitakshara Law is a E 
settled proposition. The concept of coparcener as given in the Mitakshara 
School of Hindu Law is that of a joint family property wherein all the 
members of the coparcenery share equally. (167-H) 
State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram, AIR (1969) SC 1333 and State 
of Maharashtra v. Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh and Ors., [1985) 2. SCC F 
321, referred to. 
Principles of Mui/a, I 5Jh Edition (1982) pp. 284 and p. 285; S. V.Gupta, 
Hindu Law, Vol.I, Third Edition (1981) p. 162 and N.R. Raghavachariar's 
Hindu Law and Principles and Precedents, 8th Edition (1987) at p. 230, 
~~~ 
G 
3.1. Respondent No.I and his wife, the Appellant were members of 
joint Hindu family. If Respondent No.I had not incurred the 
disqualification, then they would have inherited the property as per 
Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. When the sole male survivor had 
incurred the disqualification he cannot claim the property by virtue of H 
162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. If he cannot get the property

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.