The Kerala High Court has held that a husband convicted of causing the dowry death of his wife is disqualified from inheriting her property, even in the absence of a specific prohibitory provision in the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Invoking the common law “Slayer Rule,” the court observed that permitting a murderer to profit from their crime would violate public policy and social morality.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Easwaran S. in a Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 463 of 2011) filed by the legal heirs of a deceased mother who sought to prevent her son-in-law from claiming her daughter’s assets.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a suit for declaration and injunction (OS No.1125/1999) filed by the mother of the deceased, Valsala. Valsala married the respondent, Appukutta, in 1996. Prior to the marriage, the mother had executed a settlement deed for 20 cents of land as ‘Sthreedhanam’. Subsequently, an additional ₹75,000 was paid and kept in a fixed deposit in the joint names of the couple.
On May 25, 1997, Appukutta murdered his wife. He was later convicted under Sections 498A and 304B (dowry death) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The mother filed the suit seeking a declaration that she was the sole legal heir entitled to the fixed deposit. However, the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, noting that the Indian Succession Act, 1925, unlike the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not contain a specific provision disqualifying a murderer from inheritance.
The Legal Issue
The High Court was called upon to consider whether the “Slayer Rule”—a common law doctrine—could be applied to parties governed by the Indian Succession Act to prevent a felonious killer from inheriting the victim’s estate.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellants, Smt. M. Hemalatha, contended that allowing a murderer to inherit his victim’s property is contrary to all legal notions. She argued that the absence of a specific statutory provision should not allow the defendant to automatically inherit, and that the courts must look at the “larger public policy” and requirement of law.
Counsel for the respondent, Sri. M.R. Jayaprasad, stated he had no further instructions from his client, who was released from prison in 2015 after his life sentence was modified to ten years rigorous imprisonment on appeal.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Easwaran S. noted that while Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, explicitly disqualifies a murderer, the Indian Succession Act, 1925, is silent. However, the Court held that it is permitted to apply common law doctrines where the statute does not cater to a situation, provided it doesn’t infringe constitutional principles.
Regarding the “Slayer Rule,” the Court observed:
“Under the common law doctrine of ‘Slayer Rule’, a person who feloniously and intentionally kills another, is disqualified from inheriting the property and receiving the proceeds of the victim he killed.”
The Court referred to the US Supreme Court case Mutual Life v. Armstrong (1886) and the New York Court of Appeals case Riggs v. Palmer (1889), which established that one should not recover under a policy or will of a person whose life they have taken.
Applying this to the Indian context, the Court cited the Bombay High Court’s 1921 decision in Girimallappa Channappa Somsagar V. Kenchava San-Yellappa Hosmani, which applied the principle of justice, equity, and good conscience even before the Hindu Succession Act was enacted. The Court also noted a similar approach by the Karnataka High Court in Swami Shradanand vs Mrs Gauhar Taj Namazie (2017).
Critiquing the lower courts’ approach, the High Court stated:
“The present case is a classic example where the court must step in and apply the principle of justice, equity and good conscience rather than adopting a pedantic approach by stating that since the statute is silent, the party cannot seek any relief… the courts cannot take a view which will erode social morality.”
The Decision
The High Court set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts and allowed the appeal. The Court answered the substantial questions of law in favor of the appellants, declaring that since the defendant was convicted under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC, he is disqualified from inheriting the property.
The suit was decreed as prayed for, and the appellants were granted the liberty to apply for the release of the deposit.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Vijayan & Anr. v. Appukutta
- Case Number: RSA No. 463 of 2011
