Home  > Recent Judgements  > S.25 HINDU SUCCESSION ACT: SUPREME COURT HOLDS MURDER ACCUSED CANNOT INHERIT PROPERTY OF DECEASED

April-07- 2026

S.25 HINDU SUCCESSION ACT: SUPREME COURT HOLDS MURDER ACCUSED CANNOT INHERIT PROPERTY OF DECEASED

Introduction

MANJULA & ORS. V. D.A. SRINIVAS

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling in Manjula and Others versus D.A. Srinivas, reaffirmed the foundational legal principle that no individual can benefit from his own wrongdoing. Interpreting Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA”), the Court held that a person accused of murdering the deceased cannot claim inheritance rights over the deceased’s property, even in cases of testamentary succession through a Will.

The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, is particularly important because it clarifies that an actual criminal conviction is not a mandatory prerequisite for the application of Section 25 of the HSA. The Court emphasized that civil courts can examine the surrounding circumstances on the basis of the “preponderance of probabilities” while determining whether the inheritance claim is barred by law.

Introduction to Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act states:

“A person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered.”

The provision is rooted in the equitable doctrine that a wrongdoer should not profit from his own misconduct. This principle has long been recognized in common law and is reflected in the legal maxim:

“Ex turpi causa non oritur action”

(“No cause of action arises from an immoral or wrongful act.”)

The Supreme Court, through this judgment, has expanded the practical application of this doctrine by clarifying that the disqualification is not limited to cases where the accused has already been convicted by a criminal court.

Facts of the Case

The dispute revolved around ownership and succession rights concerning a property allegedly purchased by the plaintiff in the name of the deceased, K. Raghunath.

The plaintiff approached the civil court seeking:

  • Declaration of title,
  • Ownership rights over the suit property, and
  • Enforcement of testamentary succession on the basis of a Will purportedly executed by the deceased in his favour.

However, the defendants strongly contested the claim.

The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law. Their argument was based on Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act because the plaintiff had been arrayed as an accused in the murder case of the very person from whom he sought inheritance rights.

Importantly, the murder investigation was reportedly being conducted by the CBI.

Proceedings Before the Courts

Trial Court –

The trial court accepted the defendants’ contention and rejected the plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, holding that the suit was barred by law.

The court found that the plaintiff’s claim to inheritance could not be entertained because of the statutory disqualification under Section 25 HSA.

High Court –

The High Court reversed the trial court’s decision.

It held that in the absence of a criminal conviction, the bar under Section 25 could not automatically operate against the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaint was restored and the suit was permitted to proceed.

Aggrieved by this order, the defendants approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s order rejecting the plaint.

The Court delivered several important findings that significantly clarify the law relating to inheritance disqualification under Section 25.

  1. Section 25 Applies to Testamentary Succession Also –

One of the most important aspects of the judgment is the Court’s clarification that Section 25 is not confined only to intestate succession.

The plaintiff had argued inheritance through a Will, i.e., testamentary succession. However, the Court held that the statutory bar equally applies to testamentary succession.

The Court reasoned that allowing a murder accused to benefit under a Will executed by the deceased would defeat the very object and spirit of Section 25.

Thus, whether inheritance is claimed:

  • Through natural succession (intestate succession), or
  • Through a Will (testamentary succession),

the disqualification under Section 25 would still operate.

  1. Conviction Is Not a Condition Precedent –

The Supreme Court categorically clarified that Section 25 does not require a prior criminal conviction for its applicability.

According to the Court:

  • Section 25 imposes a civil disability,
  • The provision does not expressly mandate conviction,
  • Civil proceedings operate on a different standard of proof compared to criminal trials.

The Court observed that civil courts are entitled to independently assess whether the circumstances indicate involvement in the murder.

Unlike criminal law, where guilt must be proved “beyond reasonable doubt,” civil proceedings proceed on the standard of:

“Preponderance of Probabilities”

This means that if the available material indicates that the claimant is probably involved in the murder, the civil consequences under Section 25 may follow.

This observation is particularly significant because criminal trials often take several years to conclude. The Court’s interpretation prevents inheritance claims from being used strategically during the pendency of criminal proceedings.

  1. Suppression of Material Facts –

The Court also took serious note of the plaintiff’s suppression of material facts.

The plaintiff failed to disclose in the pleadings that:

  • He was an accused in the murder case of the deceased, and
  • A CBI investigation was pending.

The Court held that suppression of such crucial facts disentitles a litigant from equitable relief.

The Bench reiterated the settled legal principle that:

“A person guilty of suppression of material facts is not entitled to be heard.”

Accordingly, the plaint was also liable to rejection on this independent ground.

  1. Principle of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience –

The judgment strongly reinforces the equitable foundation behind Section 25.

The Court emphasized that legal systems cannot permit a person to derive advantage from wrongdoing.

The Bench observed:

  • No person should profit from his own wrong,
  • Courts must uphold justice, fairness and equity,
  • Succession laws cannot be interpreted mechanically in a manner that rewards unlawful conduct.

The ruling therefore harmonizes statutory interpretation with broader equitable principles.

Importance of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC in the Case

The case also highlights the procedural importance of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

Under this provision, a plaint can be rejected if:

“The suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by any law.”

The Supreme Court held that when the pleadings themselves indicate that the claimant may suffer statutory disqualification under Section 25 HSA, the court is empowered to reject the plaint at the threshold itself without conducting a full-fledged trial.

This prevents unnecessary litigation and abuse of judicial process.

Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Judgment

The judgment establishes several important legal propositions:

  1. Murder Disqualification Extends to Wills –

Section 25 applies not only to intestate succession but also to testamentary succession through a Will.

  1. Conviction Is Not Mandatory –

Actual criminal conviction is not a condition precedent for invoking Section 25.

  1. Civil Standard of Proof Applies –

Civil courts may determine applicability on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.

  1. Suppression of Facts Can Defeat Claims –

Concealment of material facts itself can justify rejection of a plaint.

  1. Equity Prevails –

Courts will prevent wrongdoers from benefiting from unlawful acts.

Broader Legal Significance of the Judgment

This ruling is likely to have far-reaching implications in succession disputes involving allegations of foul play.

The judgment strengthens judicial discretion in civil proceedings and ensures that:

  • Probate and inheritance proceedings are not misused by accused persons,
  • Wrongdoers do not gain financial benefits through delayed criminal adjudication,
  • Civil courts retain the power to assess surrounding circumstances independently.

The decision also aligns Indian succession jurisprudence with long-standing equitable doctrines recognized globally.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Manjula & Ors. v. D.A. Srinivas is a landmark interpretation of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. By holding that a murder accused cannot claim inheritance rights over the deceased’s property even without a criminal conviction, the Court has reinforced the moral and equitable foundations of succession law.

The ruling serves as a strong reminder that the law does not merely operate through technicalities but also through principles of fairness, justice and public policy. A person accused of causing the death of another cannot simultaneously seek to benefit from that death through inheritance claims.

The decision will undoubtedly serve as an important precedent in future inheritance and probate disputes involving allegations of murder or foul play.