Supreme Court: A plaintiff arraigned as the principal accused in the murder of a testator is prima facie disqualified from claiming succession rights under that testator's Will

 25.5. Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act provides that a person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered, or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which such person committed or abetted the commission of murder. Section 27 further declares that where a person is so disqualified, the property shall devolve as if such person had predeceased the intestate. Section 30 recognises testamentary succession and enables any Hindu to dispose of property by Will or other testamentary disposition in accordance with the Indian Succession Act, 1925 or any other applicable law. Thus, the Hindu Succession Act contemplates both intestate and testamentary succession. Consequently, the bar under Section 25 applies equally to a person who seeks to inherit the estate of the deceased through testamentary succession.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7370 OF 2026

[Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 7924 of 2024]

MANJULA AND OTHERS Vs    D.A. SRINIVAS 

Author: R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Dated: MAY 8, 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 465.

Print Page

Supreme Court Declares Section 3(2) Of Benami Transactions Prohibition Act As Unconstitutional; 2016 Amendment Act To Have Only Prospective Effect

 18. Conclusion

18.1. In view of the above discussion, we hold as under:

a) Section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

b) In rem forfeiture provision Under Section 5 of the unamended Act of 1988, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary.

c) The 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rather, prescribed substantive provisions.

d) In rem forfeiture provision Under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retroactively.

e) Concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act, viz., 25.10.2016. As a consequence of the above declaration, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings shall stand quashed.

f) As this Court is not concerned with the constitutionality of such independent forfeiture proceedings contemplated under the 2016 Amendment Act on the other grounds, the aforesaid questions are left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 

Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Ramana, C.J.I., Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, JJ.

Decided On: 23.08.2022

Citation: MANU/SC/1028/2022.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

 

Print Page