Case Analysis: Vellikannu V R. Singaperumal & Anr
- IJLLR Journal
- Jul 15, 2022
- 1 min read
Madhumitha. K & Harshana T, O.P Jindal Global Law School
CITATION: (AIR 2005 SC 2587)
FACTS:
Ramasamy Konnar, the deceased had a joint family property. His son, the first defendant had murdered his father. He was the only son of Ramasamy. Ramasamy Konnar and his wife had divorced, and the wife was living separately with a new husband. The plaintiff is the wife of the defendant. The defendant was released from jail in July 1975, after serving a term for the murder of his father. The plaintiff claims that she alone is entitled to the property of the deceased as the defendant has no right to the property since he murdered his father.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
TRIAL COURT:
The court held that the deceased Ramasami Konar and his son, the first defendant held all the properties as joint family properties. Since the first defendant had murdered his father, he is not entitled to claim any right in the joint family property when read with S. 6, 25 &27 of the HSA. The trial court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. She was given half a share in the joint family property as per S. 6 of HSA. The defendant's case was dismissed.
Comments