Man Convicted For Dowry Death Offence Disqualified From Inheriting Wife’s Property: Kerala High Court Invokes “Slayer Rule" Doctrine

The appeal before the High Court was filed by the plaintiff who had filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The Court was called upon to consider the applicability of the ‘Slayer Rule’, a common law doctrine to the Indian Law, especially when the parties are governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

The Single Bench of Justice Easwaran S. held, “Resultantly, this Court is inclined to answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellants as follows: Since the defendant was convicted for offence and sentenced under Section 498A read with Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, he is disqualified from inheriting the plaint schedule item.”

Advocate M.Hemalatha represented the Appellant while Advocate M.R. Jayaprasad represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Plaintiff’s daughter and the defendant got married in the year 1996 as per the custom prevailing among the Christian Community. Prior to the marriage, the plaintiff along with her son, Vijayan, executed a settlement deed in favour of the defendant and the plaintiff’s daughter, deceased Valsala. The property of 20 cents was given to her daughter and to her husband as Sthreedhanam at the time of marriage.After the registration of the settlement deed, the defendant was not satisfied and always demanded more dowry. The defendant was not satisfied with the land acquired by the settlement deed and demanded cash. Rs 75,000 was thus paid to the defendant after registering a sale deed of the land. The amount was deposited in the joint names of the plaintiff’s daughter and the defendant. In 1997, the defendant murdered his wife and was charge-sheeted under Sections 498A, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

In light of the fact that the fixed deposit was maturing and that the plaintiff is the sole legal heir, who is entitled to receive the amount, the suit was instituted. The defendant remained ex parte. No written statement was filed. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the parties are governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and therefore, unlike the provisions contained under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there is no provision which disqualifies a husband who is a murderer of his wife, being disentitled to inherit the property of his wife. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed. Hence, the appeal was filed before the High Court.

Reasoning

Referring to Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, which provides that a killer cannot take profit from his crime, the Bench affirmed that the Indian Courts have largely reaffirmed this principle. However, when it comes to the application provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, beyond the statute, there are no settled precedents on the point, it noted.

The Bench explained that 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. On a perusal of various case laws, the Bench noted that the Court is permitted to apply the common law doctrine where the statute does not cater to the situation, provided the application of the principle does not infringe the constitutional principles. “This Court does not wish to burden itself with the precedents wherein the Supreme Court has applied the principles of common law where the statute does not cater to the requirements of law”, it added.

The Bench held that 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 Bench stated, “Moreover, it is indisputable that the defendant was convicted for the murder of his wife and sentenced under Section 498A read with Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Further, even if the defendant was present before this Court, the result of this discussion would not have been different because the issue raised in this appeal is largely based on the public policy and that the courts cannot take a view which will erode social morality. Therefore, this Court is inclined to think that the findings rendered by the courts below are completely perverse and warrant interference.”

Thus, holding that the defendant is disqualified from inheriting the property, the Bench allowed the appeal and ordered, “...the suit, OS No.1125/1999 on the files of the Additional Munsiff's Court-II, Neyyattinkara, will stand decreed as prayed for.”

Cause Title: Vijayan v. Appukuttan @ Palraj (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:8018)

Click here to read/download Order