Murderer Cannot Inherit Property From Victim Through Wills; Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Bar Applies To Testamentary Succession: Supreme Court

"Hindu Succession Act contemplates both intestate and testamentary succession. Consequently, the bar under Section 25 applies equally to a person who seeks to inherit the estate of the deceased through testamentary succession," Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling, held that the statutory bar under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which disqualifies a murderer from inheriting the property of the person they killed, applies to testamentary succession (Wills) just as it applies to intestate succession.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed that the principle is founded upon public policy and the long-settled equitable doctrine that no person can be permitted to profit from their own wrong.

"No Man Can Benefit From His Own Wrong"

The Respondent in this case had filed a suit for a declaration of ownership over certain properties based on a Will allegedly executed by K. Raghunath. However, Raghunath had been murdered, and the Respondent was arrayed as the principal accused in the criminal investigation conducted by the CBI. The Appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, argued that the suit was barred by Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act.

"Scope Of Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Explained"

The court undertook an extensive analysis of the Hindu Succession Act to determine whether the disqualification of a murderer is limited only to cases where there is no Will. The bench noted that Section 30 of the HSA recognizes testamentary succession, enabling a Hindu to dispose of property by Will. However, the court clarified that Section 25 is a "disabling statute" that removes the protection of the law from those who commit such a heinous wrong.

"Bar Applies To Both Intestate and Testamentary Succession"

The bench emphasized that the language of the Act does not exclude testamentary dispositions from the rigour of the disqualification. The court observed that the principle is reflected in the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio—from a dishonorable cause, an action does not arise. It held that allowing a murderer to claim under a Will would "malign the very jurisprudential underpinning of right and duty."

"A person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered, or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder."

"Conviction Not A Prerequisite For Disqualification"

In a significant clarification, the Apex Court noted that Section 25 does not envisage a situation where the person claiming inheritance must necessarily stand convicted in a criminal case before the bar can be invoked. The bench held that since the provision imposes a civil consequence, the issue of whether a person committed the murder for the purpose of inheritance can be examined on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.

"Civil And Criminal Spheres Operate Independently"

The court reiterated that strict proof required for a criminal conviction is not indispensable in civil proceedings dealing with Section 25. If the evidence and facts of the case point to the commission of the offence by the claimant, the civil court is empowered to deny the vindication of such rights. The judges noted that the court must effectively discourage fraudulent and dishonest litigants from abusing the judicial process to gain from their crimes.

"Suppression Of Material Facts Leads To Rejection Of Plaint"

The bench also pulled up the Respondent for suppressing the fact that he was the principal accused in the murder of the testator. The court held that a person guilty of suppressing material facts is not entitled to be heard and that the plaint was liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It observed that the trial court was justified in "nipping such litigation in the bud."

"Interplay Between Succession Law And Public Policy"

The court concluded that the law cannot become an instrument for legitimizing its own violation. By invoking a higher standard of fairness, the bench ruled that the reservoir of equity allows courts to withhold enforcement of rights that accrue from a wrongful act. This ensures that legal rights are not used as vehicles of injustice, especially in the context of inheritance following a violent crime.

"Court Reverses High Court Decision, Restores Rejection Of Plaint"

The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment which had restored the Respondent's suit. The bench held that since the Respondent was accused of murdering the person from whom he claimed inheritance, and because the transaction was also found to be a prohibited benami arrangement, the suit was wholly unsustainable in law and could not be permitted to proceed to trial.

Date of Decision: May 08, 2026