Murder Accused Can't Inherit Victim's Property: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that a person accused of murdering someone cannot claim inheritance over the deceased's property merely because there has been no criminal conviction.

Court said a conviction is not a prerequisite for denying inheritance rights under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act if the issue can be established on the basis of evidence in civil proceedings.

Court also ruled that properties held through benami arrangements become liable for confiscation once a judicial determination declaring the transaction benami attains finality.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made these observations while allowing an appeal filed by Manjula and others and setting aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment dated February 22, 2024. The high court had restored a civil suit filed by respondent D A Srinivas after reversing a trial court order rejecting the plaint.

The trial court had rejected a suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action and was barred under Sections 4 and 6 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The high court, however, restored the suit for adjudication on merits.

Why was the dispute before the Supreme Court?

The respondent-plaintiff sought a declaration that he was the owner of certain properties based on a Will allegedly executed on April 20, 2018, by K Raghunath, who was murdered on May 4, 2019. The plaintiff claimed that the properties had actually been purchased using his funds and that Raghunath was merely a name-lender holding them on his behalf.

The appellants, on the other hand, contended that the properties were the self-acquired assets of Raghunath and that he had already executed a registered Will in 2016 in favour of his wife. They further alleged that the respondent had conspired with others to murder Raghunath, leading to the registration of two FIRs in 2020.

The plaintiff also relied on several Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and argued that there existed a fiduciary relationship between him and Raghunath, under which lands were purchased in Raghunath's name for the benefit of the plaintiff and were eventually to be transferred back to him.

Can a murder accused inherit property without a conviction?

Answering this question in the negative, the Supreme Court said Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act disqualifies a person who commits or abets the commission of murder from inheriting the property of the deceased.

The Bench clarified that the provision does not require a prior criminal conviction. According to the Court, the disqualification creates a civil consequence and can be examined on the standard of "preponderance of probabilities", which is different from the stricter standard of proof required in criminal cases. The Court also held that the expression "murder" in Section 25 would include culpable homicide.

Court noted that the plaintiff was an accused in the murder of Raghunath and that a CBI investigation was stated to be pending. It further observed that this fact had been suppressed in the pleadings.

Did the plaintiff establish a fiduciary relationship?

Court answered this question in the negative as well.

It noted that the plaintiff himself had pleaded that Raghunath was an employee in companies run by his father. There was no pleaded personal employer-employee relationship between the plaintiff and Raghunath. Even otherwise, such a relationship could not be elevated to a fiduciary one so as to attract the statutory exception under the Benami Act, Court said.

The Bench held that a commercial arrangement involving consideration and reciprocal obligations cannot be treated as property being held in trust for another person. Merely asserting confidence or trust does not convert a commercial arrangement into a fiduciary relationship.

Why did the Supreme Court hold the transactions to be illegal and benami?

Court found that the plaintiff or his company was disentitled from directly purchasing the lands. According to the Court, a mechanism was allegedly devised whereby the plaintiff funded purchases in another person's name, got the lands converted for non-agricultural use and later sought their transfer in his own favour.

Such an arrangement, Court held, was intended to defeat the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and was therefore hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act. The MOUs were founded on an unlawful object and were consequently illegal and void. No rights could arise from them, Court said.

The Bench further observed that the transactions bore all the characteristics of a benami arrangement prohibited by law. "What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be achieved indirectly," Court said.

Confiscation of benami property

Court clarified that confiscation under the Benami Act is a civil consequence and does not amount to prosecution. Therefore, the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) is not attracted.

It further held that confiscation proceedings and criminal prosecution operate in separate spheres and are governed by different procedures. Once a judicial determination declaring a transaction benami attains finality, the property becomes liable to confiscation and the Adjudicating Authority cannot sit in appeal over that judicial determination.

Holding that the transactions were benami in nature, Court directed the Central Government to appoint an Administrator and take over the suit properties in accordance with law within eight weeks.

The Bench also made it clear that no court would entertain any claim arising out of or founded upon the benami transaction in question.

Court emphasised that judicial processes cannot be used to validate or protect arrangements prohibited by law and said strict enforcement of the Benami Act was necessary to ensure that benami transactions neither receive judicial indulgence nor escape statutory consequences.

Case Title: Manjula And Others vs. D. A. Srinivas

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan

Date of Judgment: May 8, 2026