RAM CHATTERJEE Vs. TAPATI MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 of Title Suit No. 65 of 1990 challenging the order No. 19 dated 17th June, 1991, passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 7th Court at Alipore, District South 24-Parganas in the said Title Suit whereby prayer for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was rejected. This revision application raised a very nice legal question about interpretation of the statutory provision as laid down under section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 hereinafter refer to as said Act. For effective adjudication of the matter and for appreciation of rival arguments, said section 25 is quoted in extenso herein below: ?25.Murderer disqualified.- 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.?

(2.) The defendants of the Title Suit has assailed the impugned order only on the point that the suit was pre-matured since there was no adjudication as yet by a competent Criminal Court holding that the defendant husband committed murder to his wife or abetted such commission of murder. It is contended very strongly by the present revisionist that a criminal case is already pending before the competent Criminal Court on the basis of the complaint filed by the plaintiff of the present suit on the charge of committing murder to the daughter of the plaintiff and unless and until a finding and/or adjudication is made by the Criminal Court to that effect, against the defendant husband, holding guilty of the charges, there was no scope to file any civil suit praying declaration in terms of section 25 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, disqualifying husband to be a successor to the property left by the wife. It is contended by the petitioner that the word ?Murder? has not been defined either in Hindu Succession Act or in the Civil Procedure Code, accordingly the definition of such word ?Murder? to be looked into the penal statute namely Indian Penal Code for adjudication of the issue. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the word 'convicted' to be added and/or read into the statute for the purpose of disqualifying a person to inherit the property in terms of the section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act. It is further contended that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide a question whether a person is a murderer or not and such jurisdiction only vests to Criminal Court.

(3.) Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned senior counsel further submits that since the definition of murder in the present statute that is Hindu Succession Act is not prescribed, the Civil Court will not be in a position to determine the Civil liability of disqualification on succession by holding the defendant husband as murderer or abator to the commission of offence murder. It is further contended that since there is no parameter to find a person as murderer in the said Act, the Civil Court will be in difficulty to adjudicate the matter even it is assumed that Civil Court has the jurisdiction to determine the issue as to whether defendant husband is a murderer or not.