AN ANALYSIS OF THE SLAYER’S RULE IN AMERICA AND INDIA: A PROPOSAL TO AMEND SECTION 25 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT
Nuzhath Khanam M
B.A., L.L.B. (HONS)-II YEAR
INTRODUCTION:
Laws evolve from time to time. The legal principles are those principles built upon morals which are applied to serve justice with equity and good conscience. The authority of legal principles rests entirely upon the general reception and usage. The only method of proving that a maxim is a rule of common law is by showing that it had always been a custom to observe it. (1) One such legal principle is, one cannot take benefit of one’s own wrong. This principle is reflected in section 25 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 25 of the act states, “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 he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder” The effect of section 25 read along with the section 27 (2) of the act is that a murderer is totally disqualified to succeed the estate of deceased. The framers of the Act in the objects and reasons have made a reference to the decision of Privy Council that a murderer is not to be regarded as the stock of fresh line of descent but should be regarded as non-existent. (3) Where a person is entitled to succeed in his or her own right as an heir of the deceased under the act, the rule laid under the section 27 has no application. (4) This implies that a person cannot claim the property of the victim though the murderer and this is considered to be in accordance with the public policy, equity and good conscience. This paper points out that the implications of section 25 and 27 is not in accordance with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience through the analysis of various Indian cases. This paper also focusses on the evolution of law with regard to changes in the society and how the principle which seems to be unjust in general has inevitable existence due to the demand of time by pointing out the flawed reformative justice system. Through comparison of American cases, this paper also proposes an amendment to Hindu Succession Act in the light of public policy, equity and good conscience.
RIGGS VS PALMER (1889)
In the case of Riggs Vs Palmer (5) in the United States in the year 1889, it was decided by the majority opinion that the murderer who was a 16-year-old lad during the commission of the murder of Francis B.Palmer, his grandfather should not inherit the property of Francis Palmer despite being him given the property by will. Francis Palmer wrote the will and testament in 1880, in which small legacies were given to his daughters and the remainder of the estate was given to his grandson. This decision was based on a legal principle which states that no one can take advantage of his own wrong. He was sent to state reformatory center in the year 1882 for the murder he had committed. When the matter of execution of the will came up, the judges had a total of 3 ways out of which 2 ways upheld the title of the murderer. One was the direct interpretation of the law which dictates the execution of will as it is proper to fulfill the intention of the testator and the other was the principle that he was given punishment for the crime and he cannot be punished further by not giving the property. The third way was through the legal principle, “Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria” which means that no one can take the benefit of one’s own crime according to which the boy was denied his grandfather’s property. This principle prevailed over the other two as it served better social justice. (6)
“Besides, all laws, as well as all contracts, may be controlled in their operation and effect by general, fundamental maxims of the common law. No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime. These maxims are dictated by public policy, have their foundation in universal law administered in all civilized countries, and have nowhere been superseded by statutes”.(7)
The authority of legal principles rests entirely upon the general reception and usage. The only method of proving that a maxim is a rule of common law is by showing that it had always been a custom to observe it(8). The use of this particular principle in Riggs case led to the formulation of Slayer’s rule. The slayer’s rule prevents the slayer from inheriting the property. In the nature of Judicial Process, Justice Benjamin Cardozo marks that the first two principles formed the basis of the minority view and the last principle formed the basis of prevailing majority view disinheriting the slayer.(9) Social justice was thus considered of greater value than the preservation of property(10). Here, it is pertinent to understand the very idea of social justice.
The sense of justice is a settled disposition to adopt and to want to act from the moral point of view insofar at least as the principles of justice define it.(11) Considering the original position as proposed by John Rawls, the justice would have been the same for all which includes both the victim and the accused. When a decision is taken by the court, it has to consider the effects that the process has on the people involved in the process. A 16 year was sent to the state reformatory in order to reform him. In a sociological and psychological view, the society around an individual has a great effect in influencing people and the crime doers are not solely responsible for their wrongs but the society is also responsible as socialization determines the character of the individuals and just punishing the wrong doers can never bring a large scale change in the society.
“During the nineteenth century, the treatment of juveniles in the United States started to change. Social reformers began to create special facilities for the troubled juveniles, especially in large cities. In New York City, the Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency established the New York house of Refuge to house juvenile delinquents in 1825. The Chicago Reform School opened in 1855. The reformers who supported these institutions sought to protect juvenile offenders by separating them from adult offenders. They also focussed on rehabilitation-trying to help young offenders avoid a future life of crime.”(12)
If the system itself had the focus on reforming people then the decision taken by the application of the legal principle has defeated the idea of reformation. In the end, the principle that was thought to be the most fundamental, to represent the larger and deeper social interests, put its competitors to flight.(13) With due respect, I contradict this as the application of the principle in this particular case, has created a misconception of social interest. The societal interest, in general, should be to serve justice for all individuals in the society. Here, the judicial discretion also plays a role where judges decide the cases serving justice for all. Justice can be served to the wrong doer through reformation which is also the aim of public policy.
This principle is also seen in Hindu law- section 25 of Hindu Succession Act which reads as,
“Murderer disqualified-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 he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder”
ANALYSIS OF INDIAN CASES:
In Vedanayaga Mudaliar Vs. Vedammal(14) and Gangu Vs. Chandrabnagabai(15) It was held that the theory of legal and equitable estates is no part of Hindu Law, and should not be introduced into the discussion. The second question arises whether a title can be claimed through the murderer. Here, the Lordships held that the murderer should be treated as a non-existent and not as one who forms the stock for a fresh line of descent.
In K.Stanumurthiyya And Ors. Vs K.Ramappa And Ors.(16), it was held that the sons of the murderer were entitled to the property but not through the title of the murderer. This was taken based on the decision of the Privy Council in Gangu Vs. Chandrabnagabai,
“It is no doubt that because she is the husband’s wife that she becomes the gotraja sapinda of the deceased. In the other words, her status as the wife is the cause of her status as gotraja sapinda. The former is the cause and the latter is the effect. But, the sapindaship is an entity by itself, distinct from, through arising out of the cause. And it is the sapindaship which is the immediate cause of her heirship”(17)
In Seetharamaiah Vs. Ramakrishnaiah(18), it was held that Parliament had inserted section 25 in the Hindu Succession Act as all matter of high public policy based on well-known principles of justice, equity and good conscience so that the person may not be able to accelerate the succession by murdering the last owner of the property and it is done by the next heir he stands excluded from succession, meaning thereby that he would not be allowed to take benefit of succession by his own wrong by committing the murder of the previous owner.
In M.Nagarajan Vs V.M.Nagammal (2011), it was held that the husband who murdered his wife and children and served life imprisonment should not inherit the wife’s property and the property was given to her mother. It appears that sections 25 and 27 were enacted by the legislature to give statutory approval to the principles of equity, justice and good conscience which disqualifies murderer from inheriting the property of the person murdered. Therefore, the words and phrases in these sections will have to be construed in the light of these principles and this is also a well-established principle of public policy.(19)
In Mata Badal Singh and Ors V. Bijay Bahadur Singh and Ors., (20)A murderer is disqualified from succeeding to the estate of his victim upon the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Further, a murderer should be treated as a non-existent qua the estate of the murdered person that is to say no title to the estate of the murdered person can be claimed through the murderer.
In Chinnappapapal and others Vs. Rajammal(21), the property of the father was not given to the sons as they were convicted of committing their father’s murder. This is again under section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act.
In Kenchava Kom Sanyellappa Hosmani Vs.Girimallappa Channappa Samasagar(22), it was held that a murderer must for the purpose of the inheritance, be treated as if he were dead when the inheritance opened and as not being a fresh stock of descent, the exclusion extends to the legal as well as beneficial estate, so that neither he can himself succeed nor can the succession be claimed through him.
DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST:
In Ellerson Vs Westcott(23), the principle of constructive trust developed which is an improvement in serving justice from Riggs Vs. Palmer. It was held that the murderer can be a trustee so that the property benefits the heirs of the murderer and this also prevents the misuse of the property by the trustee. A constructive trust, does not like an express trust, arise because of manifestation of an intention to create it, but is imposed as a remedy to prevent unjust enrichment.(24)
Constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression. When property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee.(25)
- Justice Benjamin Cardozo
This evolution in the concept of inheritance is not obvious in the Indian system which is apparent from the cases discussed above. The judicial discretion has played a vital role in assuring equity as the judges have tried the best to make sure that the property benefits the heir with a sense of natural justice. Thus, the concept of constructive trust should also be included in the Hindu Succession Act which will enable the murderers to be the trustees and this will pave the way to claim the succession of property through the murderers. Section 10(26) of Indian Trusts Act, 1882 allows the person competent to contract to be a trustee. Further, Section 11 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 disqualifies convicts from entering into a contract. However, on the expiry of the sentence, he is at liberty to institute a suit.(27) The disability of convicts lasts as long as the person is imprisoned or supervised by parole authorities.(28) Thus, based on the two laws, a murderer can obviously be made trustees and this will be in accordance with public policy, social interest, equity and good conscience as it will benefit the heir.
CONCLUSION:
With the cases above discussed, there are two aspects to be considered.
1) The idea of reformation
2) The idea of claiming inheritance through the murderer.
The judicial process is being unjust to the murderer. The broad object of punishment of the accused found guilty in progressive civilized societies is to impress on the guilty party that commission of crimes does not pay and it is both against his individual interest and also against the larger interest of the society to which he belongs. The sentence to be appropriate should, therefore, be neither too harsh nor too lenient.(29) Reformation, by contrast, seeks to bring about a change in the offender’s character itself so as to reclaim him as a useful member of the society.(30) When the justice system has succeeded in reforming the murderer thereby protecting the society’s interest, it can undoubtedly give the property to the murderer.
The introduction of the constructive trust in Hindu Succession Act is also pertinent as the present provision does not allow the heirs of the murderer to claim property through the murderer and this will satisfy the principles of equity, public policy.The property is to benefit the descendants and not just the immediate heir. The American Justice system has corrected itself in this aspect. The concept of constructive trust through which the property can be claimed through the murderer is in the view of principles of equity, justice, and good conscience. The legal principles are morally just and they are in accordance with the situation of the time such as no one can take benefit from one’s own crime exists when the reformative justice system is inefficient. The reformative justice system should be corrected and the justice should be served through judicial discretion till the reformative justice system is reformed. The legal principles can be used for equity, justice, and good conscience only through judicial discretion.
______________________________
(1) Nalwa Suman& Kohli Hari Dev, Commentary on The Juvenile Justice Act. 21st Edn., page no.68
(2) If any person is disqualified from inheriting any property under this Act, it shall devolve as if such person had died before the intestate.
(3) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act No. 30 of 1956), Kamal Publishers, New Delhi.
(4) Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, Hindu Law, Updated 21st Edition (Satyajeet A Desai) pg.no. 1237
(5) 115 N.Y. 506 (1889)
(6) “In the end, the principle that was thought to be most fundamental, to represent the larger and deeper social interests, put its competitors to flight”- Benjamin N.Cardozo, Nature of Judicial Process, Yale University Press
(7) Riggs V. Palmer (115 NY 506)
(8) Ibid (Footnote 1)
(9) Benjamin N.Cardozo, Nature of Judicial Process, Yale University Press page no. 41
(10) The slayer’s rule, Nili Cohen, Boston University Law Review, page no. 796, vol.92
(11) John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Universal Law Publishing Company.
(12) http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/publiced/features/DYJpart1.authcheckdam.pdf
(13) Benjamin N.Cardozo, Nature of Judicial Process, Yale University Press page no.42
(14) (1904) 14 MLJ 297
(15) (1908)10 BOMLR 149
(16) (1942) 1 MLJ 21
(17) (1908)10 BOMLR 149
(18) AIR (1970)407
(19) M.Nagarajan Vs V.M.Nagammal (2011), 23 Dec
(20) AIR (1976) all 420
(21) (2002) 1 MLJ 66
(22) AIR (1924) PC 209
(23) Benjamin N.Cardozo, Nature of Judicial Process, page no. 42
(24) Restatement of Restitution, Section 160, Comment (a).
(25) Beatty Vs. Guggenheim Exploration Co., 225, N.Y
(26) Every person capable of holding property may be a trustee but, where the trust involves the exercise of discretion, he cannot execute it unless he is competent to contract.
(27) M.C.Kuchhal, Business Law, Second Revised Edn, Vikas Publishing House, pg.no. 1.55
(28) John D.Ashcroft, Katherine Ashcroft, Martha Patterson, Cengage Advantage Books; Law for Business (19th Edition).
(29) Shatrughan Chauhan Anr vs Union of India & ors, (2014)
(30) P.J.Fitzgerald, Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th edition, Universal Law Publishing Company, page no.94
REFERENCES:
BOOKS:
1) Herbert Brooms, A Selection of Legal Maxims (1874), Philadelphia: T.&J.W.Johnson
2) P.J.Flitzgerald, Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th edition, Universal Law Publishing Company
3) Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of Judicial Process, Yale University Press (1946)
4) John Rawls, The Theory of Justice, Universal Law Publishing Company.
5) Nalwa Suman & Kohli Hari Dev, Commentary on The Juvenile Justice Act, 2nd edition, Universal Law Publishing Company.
6) M.C.Kuchhal, Business Law, Second Revised Edn, Vikas Publishing House.
7) John D.Ashcroft, Katherine Ashcroft, Martha Patterson, Cengage Advantage Books; Law for Business (19th Edition).
ARTICLES:
1) Daniel A.Farber, Courts, Statutes and Public Policy: The Case of the Murderous Heir, 53 SMU L.Rev.31(2000).
2) D'Amato, Antony, “Elmer’s Rule: A Jurisprudential Dialogue” (2010).Faculty Working Papers. Paper 110.
3) Nkeonye Otakpor, Judicial Discretion, and Democratic Theory, Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, Vol. 68, No.2 (1982)
WEB SOURCES:
1)http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/publiced/features/DYJpart1.authcheckdam.pdf
CASES REFERRED:
1) Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506 (1889)
2) VedanayaMudaliar v. Vedammal, (1904) 14 MLJ 297
3) Gangu Vs. Chandrabnagabai, (1908) 10 BOMLR 149
4) K.Stanumurthiyya And Ors. Vs K.Ramappa And Ors, (1942) 1 MLJ 21 9
5) Seetharamaiah Vs. Ramakrishnaiah, AIR (1970) 407
6) M.Nagarajan Vs. V.M.Nagammal, (2011), 23 december
7) Mata Badal Singh and Ors V. Bijay Bahadur Singh and Ors., AIR (1976) ALL 420
8) Chinnappapapal and others Vs. Rajammal, (2002) 1 MLJ 66
9) Kenchava Kom Sanyellappa Hosmani Vs.Girimallappa Channappa Samasagar, AIR (1924) PC 209
10) Shatrughan Chauhan Anr Vs. Union of India & Ors, (2014) 3 SCC 1
11) Ellerson V. Westcott, 148 N.Y. 149 (N.Y.1896)
12) Beatty V. Guggenheim Exploration Co. (1919) 225 NY 380.