The Madras High Court has held that properties acquired by Catholic priests after entering a religious order and undertaking religious vows belong to the religious society concerned and cannot be claimed by their legal heirs merely on the basis of their family relationship [ABVM Vs Deiva Nayagan].

A Division Bench of Justices N Anand Venkatesh and KK Ramakrishnan passed the ruling while allowing appeals filed by a Catholic religious society against a district court order granting succession rights to the relatives of a deceased priest over fixed deposits worth ₹56 lakh.

The Court held that the ownership of properties acquired during a priest's religious service must be determined in light of the obligations undertaken by the priest and the circumstances of the property's acquisition.

"The legal consequence of such acquisition must therefore be determined in the light of the religious obligations undertaken by him and the institutional character in which those properties were acquired, rather than merely by the fact that the title documents stood in his individual name," the judgment said.

The Court explained that the concept of a person's "civil death" upon his entering a religious order signifies the person's renunciation of worldly relationships and interests.

However, it clarified that civil death does not mean that a priest ceases to exist as a legal person or loses all civil rights.

The Bench distinguished between properties acquired before entering a religious order and those acquired subsequently in accordance with the obligations governing the concerned religious order.

It held that properties independently inherited from family members cannot automatically be treated as belonging to the religious society.

The Court also drew a distinction between diocesan priests and priests belonging to religious orders who have undertaken perpetual vows.

It observed that diocesan priests do not, merely by becoming priests, assume the same obligations concerning renunciation of worldly possessions as those entering religious orders.

The ruling came in appeals filed by the ABVM Society of the Catholic Apostolate (Pallottines), which claimed entitlement to fixed deposits worth ₹56 lakh left behind by the late Reverend Father Devakumar Arulanantham.

The deposits were claimed by the deceased priest's brothers and niece, who had obtained a succession certificate from a district court.

The High Court examined a handwritten document executed by the priest in 1988, declaring that his personal belongings would go to the Society while his family would retain rights over property covered by family inheritance.

Although the document could not be treated as a valid Will for want of statutory attestation, the Court held that it constituted a religious undertaking by the priest, evidencing his obligations towards the Society.

Relying on Canon Law, the Society's rules and the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the deposits, the Court recognised the Society's entitlement and set aside the succession certificate granted to the deceased priest's relatives.

The Bench directed the relatives to return the amounts received to the Society within one month, failing which interest at 9 percent per annum would apply.

The Bench also extensively referred to Biblical teachings while examining the competing claims, including Matthew 6:24.

"The teaching of Christ that no person can serve both God and money admits of no institutional exception," the judgment quoted.

It also referred to the First Epistle to Timothy, which warns against the love of money, and emphasises the Christian principles of renunciation and sharing wealth with the needy.

The Court criticised the deceased priest's relatives, who were themselves Christians, for asserting proprietary claims inconsistent with their religious commitments.

It observed that such conduct was wholly inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the moral obligations of the Christian faith.

The Bench also invoked the Ten Commandments while discussing the obligation to return money wrongfully received.

"This Court, in the peculiar facts of the present case, is reminded of the moral injunction contained in the Ten Commandments, particularly the commandment, 'You shall not steal.'"

However, it clarified that these religious writings were cited to illustrate the principle of restitution and were not being applied as sources of legal authority.

Senior Advocate S Subbiah, instructed by Advocate P Jessi Jeeva Priya, represented the Society.

Advocate D Sadiq Raja, instructed by Advocate P R Prithiviraj, represented the deceased priest's relatives.

Advocate S Anwar Sameen appeared for the bank.

[Read Judgment]