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: Whether the court can permit Accused to Exhibit Documents as per S.294 CrPC, Already Part Of Chargesheet Without Formal Proof Of Signature?

 In order to duly appreciate the provisions of

Section 294 Cr.P.C., it is necessary to refer to the

provision which is reproduced as under:

“294. No formal proof of certain

documents.—(1) Where any document is

filed before any Court by the

prosecution or the accused, the

particulars of every such document

shall be included in a list and the

prosecution or the accused, as the case

may be, or the pleader for the

prosecution or the accused, if any,

shall be called upon to admit or deny

the genuineness of each such document.

(2) The list of documents shall be in

such form as be prescribed by the State

Government.

(3) Where the genuineness of any

document is not disputed, such document

may be read in evidence in inquiry,

trial or other proceeding under this

Code without proof of the signature of

the person to whom it purports to be

signed:

Provided that the Court may, in its

discretion, require such signature to

be proved.”{Para 4}

5) After perusal thereof, it cannot be doubted

that in case any document has been filed by the

prosecution or the accused in any Court, such

document is required to be included in a list. The

genuineness of the documents included in the list

can be ascertained by the Court by calling upon the

prosecution or the accused, as the case may be. If

such document is not disputed, it can be read in

inquiry, trial or other proceedings under Cr.P.C.

without proving the signature of the person to whom

it purports to be. As per proviso thereto, if

necessary, it is on the discretion of the Court to

require such signature to be proved, while applying

the provision of Section 294 (3) Cr.P.C.

6) In the facts of the present case, it is clear

that the documents as sought to be marked as

exhibits by the appellant are part of the

chargesheet and of documents produced by the

prosecution. The appellant, through averments made

in the application, contends that these documents

were included in the list of documents of

prosecution. Learned Additional Solicitor General,

appearing for the CBI, disputes this fact, but on

prima facie examination of the record, it suggests

that the documents sought by accused formed part of

the list of documents produced by CBI. Nevertheless,

we reserve the CBI’s liberty to raise this objection

at the appropriate stage before court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1383 of 2026)

R. GANESH Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 

Dated: April 27, 2026.

Print Page

New Agricultural Land Leasing Framework as per Maharashtra Agricultural Land Leasing Act, 2017 implemented from 08 May 2026.

 

                Prepared with Google Gemini

Maharashtra’s agricultural economy may be entering an important new phase. With the Maharashtra Agricultural Land Leasing Act, 2017, published as Maharashtra Act No. XXVIII of 2023, and the Maharashtra Agricultural Land Leasing Rules, 2024 notified on 2 June 2025, the State has created a legal framework that seeks to bring agricultural leasing out of informality and into a transparent, rights-based system.

For decades, many landowners hesitated to lease out agricultural land because older tenancy concerns created a fear that temporary possession might later become a claim to permanent rights. That hesitation encouraged informal, undocumented arrangements, left many parcels underutilized, and prevented actual cultivators from accessing formal credit, crop insurance, and other state-backed benefits.

Read full Act here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances, rejection of application U/S 311 of CRPC of Prosecution by Session Judge can be said to be legal and correct?

The learned Trial Court has rightly observed that in view of the provisions of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Chemical Analyser’s reports are admissible in evidence and can be read in evidence without formal examination of the Chemical Analyser. The reports being documents issued by a public servant in discharge of official duties carry a statutory presumption with regard to their authenticity. Therefore, there was no absolute necessity for the prosecution to examine the Chemical Analyser merely for proving the contents of the reports already exhibited on record.{Para 8}

9. The learned Trial Court has also taken into consideration the stage of the trial and the fact that the prosecution evidence had already been closed. The matter was thereafter fixed for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In such circumstances, the learned Trial Court was justified in holding that no sufficient ground was made out for exercising powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

10. In my considered opinion, no error, illegality or perversity has been committed by the learned Trial Court while rejecting the application preferred by the prosecution. The petitioner-State has failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 569 OF 2026

The State Of Maharashtra Vs  Gokul Gotiram Jadhav

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

DATED : 28.04.2026

PER COURT :

Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:21268

Print Page