REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Manathankadiyil Nan Appellant

V/S

Kuniyil Gangadharan Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

KENCHUVA V. GIRIMALLAPPA [REFERRED TO]
K. STANUMURTHIAYYA AND OTHERS V. K. RAMAPPA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
M S SHERIFF VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
ANIL BEHARI GHOSH VS. LMFLCH BALA DASSI [REFERRED TO]
KARAM CHAND GANGA PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. NARAYAN RAO SHAM RAO DESHMUKH [REFERRED TO]
K G PREMSHNKER VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI KUMAR PANDA VS. SHANKUNTALA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
IQBAL SINGH MARWAH VS. MEENAKSHI MARWAH [REFERRED TO]
VALLIKANNU VS. R SINGAPERUMAL [REFERRED TO]
P. SWAROOPA RANI V. M. HARI NARAYANA @ HARI BABU [REFERRED TO]
SYED ASKARI HADI ALI AUGUSTINE VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
SETH RAMDAYAL JAT VS. LAXMI PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
NAKCHHED SINGH VS. BIJAI BAHADUR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MATA BADAL SINGH VS. BIJAY BAHADUR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JAMUNA DASS VS. BOARD OF REVENUE [REFERRED TO]
NANNEPUNENI SEETHARAMAIAH VS. NANNEPUNENI RAMAKRISHNAIAH [REFERRED TO]
PERUMAL VS. DEVARAJAN [REFERRED TO]
MINOTI VS. SUSHIL MOHAN SINGH MALIK [REFERRED TO]
MOHANDAS VS. P ABDUL AZEEZ [REFERRED TO]
LALMUNI DEVI VS. JAGDISH TIWARY [REFERRED TO]
SARAVANABHAVA VS. SELLAMMAL AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE twin questions that arise for consideration in this Second Appeal are (i) whether a murderer who secured an acquittal by virtue of the defence set up under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is disqualified under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act from inheriting the estate of the murderer and (ii) how is the separate estate of the murderer to devolve consequent on his death?

(2.) THE facts fall within a very narrow compass and are not really in dispute. Plaint items 1 to 5 were acquired under Exts.A1, A2, A4, A5 and A7. The properties jointly belonged to Karthiyani and her son Mohandas. Ext.A6 relating to item No.6 of the plaint schedule is the property which Mohandas obtained by assignment from Kalliani, who was the second defendant in the suit. Mohandas was the only child of Karthiyani. Karthiyani, her husband and Mohandas died on 1983, 1959 and 1988 respectively. The plaintiffs are the paternal sisters of Mohandas. At the time of the death of Mohandas he had not left behind any legal heirs other than the plaintiffs. While they were in possession of the property, it is alleged that the defendants are said to have trespassed into the property and appropriated the usufructus from the property. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants have no manner of rights over the suit properties. They therefore sued for recovery of possession on the strength of title. The plaint also makes mention of a suit O.S.236 of 1989 filed by the second defendant in which she procured an interim injunction. On these allegations the suit was laid.

(3.) ISSUES were raised by the trial court. The evidence consists of the testimony of Exts.A1 to A8 marked from the side of the plaintiffs. The defendants did not adduce any evidence.

Click here to view full judgment.

MANATHANKADIYIL NAN Vs. KUNIYIL GANGADHARAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address