GIRIMALLAPPA CHANNAPPA SOMSAGAR Vs. KENCHAVA SAN-YELLAPPA HOSMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for possession of property which belonged to one Ramanna deceased. He left an adopted son Parappa and a widow Chanbasava. Parappa died a month after Ramanna and thereafter Chanbasava became entitled to the suit property as her son s heiress. Ramanna s nephew Hanmappa claimed to be his adopted son, but the Court decided against him, whereupon he murdered Chanbasava. He was convicted and sentenced to transportation for life. The plaintiff is the son of Ramanna s sister Basava, while the t defendants are the sisters of Ramanna s brother Vadakappa. On the death of Chanbasava, Hanmappa was admittedly the nearest heir. Unless the fact that he murdered Chanbasava in some way affects his rights to inherit, the plaintiff s suit must fail.

(2.) But if he is disqualified, the question arises, whether he should be treated as non-existent, or whether he should be treated as a person deceased who formed the stock for a fresh line of descent. If the latter, again the plaintiff faila. If the former, another question arises whether the plaintiff as father s sister s son can claim preference to the father s brother s daughters or is only entitled to equal treatment with them.

(3.) Tho learned trial Judge held, on the authority of Vedanayaga Mudaliar v. Vedammal (1904) I.L.R. 27 Mad. 591, that the legal estate vested in Hanmappa, but he was prevented from enjoying it on account of the disqualification brought about by his murdering Chanbasava, and consequently he became a trustee for the reversioners under Section 94 of the Indian Trusts Act.