Section 25 of HSA

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, in Manjula and Others v. D.A. Srinivas (2026), set aside a High Court order and restored the Trial Court's decision to reject the plaintiff's plaint at the threshold, holding that the plaintiff — who was arrayed as an accused in the murder of the deceased — was disqualified from claiming inheritance over the deceased's property under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA). 

• The Court further clarified that actual conviction for murder is not a condition precedent for the disqualification under Section 25 HSA to operate, and that in civil proceedings, the issue may be examined on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.

What was the Background of Manjula and Others v. D.A. Srinivas (2026) Case? 

• The plaintiff claimed to be the real owner of the suit property, which had been purchased in the name of the deceased, K. Raghunath. Relying on an alleged Will executed by K. Raghunath in his favour, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and ownership through testamentary succession. 
• The defendant contested the suit by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was barred by law, specifically Section 25 of the HSA, as the plaintiff was arrayed as an accused in the murder case of K. Raghunath — the very person from whose estate he sought to inherit. 
• The Trial Court allowed the defendant's application and rejected the plaint. However, the High Court reversed the Trial Court's order, prompting the defendants to approach the Supreme Court in appeal.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Scope of Section 25 HSA: The Court held that the bar under Section 25 applies to both intestate and testamentary succession. A person accused of murdering the deceased from whom inheritance is claimed is disqualified from asserting any such rights — not only under the statutory provision but also on the broader principles of justice, fair play, and equity. 
• On the Maxim Ex Turpi Causa: The Court reasoned that a person must not be permitted to profit from or take advantage of his own wrong. This principle is embedded in the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio and in the rule that no person may benefit from his own wrongdoing. 
• On the Requirement of Conviction: The Court clarified that Section 25 HSA does not make actual conviction a condition precedent for the disqualification to operate. Since the provision imposes a civil consequence, the issue may be examined on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, independent of the stricter standard of proof applicable in criminal prosecutions. 
• On Suppression of Material Facts: The Court noted that the plaintiff had suppressed the material fact of his being accused of K. Raghunath's murder in his pleadings, and a CBI investigation was stated to be pending. It held that a person guilty of suppressing material facts is not entitled to be heard, and the plaint is also liable to rejection on this ground.

What is Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 

About: 

• The term succession is not defined anywhere in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA).   
• In general, succession can be defined as transmission of rights and obligation in an estate, of a deceased person to his heir or heirs.  
• This Act applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, but not to Muslims, Christians, Parsis, or Jews. 

Section 25 — Murderer Disqualified: 

• A person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder is disqualified from inheriting property in two situations:  
  • The property of the person murdered, and 
  • Any other property in furtherance of whose succession the murder or abetment was committed. 
• The disqualification thus covers not only direct inheritance from the victim but also any collateral property gain that was the motive behind the murder.