Property Acquired By Priest After Final Vows Cannot Be Treated As His Individual Property: Madras High Court

The Court treated an unattested document styled “Last Will” not as a testamentary disposition but as a religious undertaking surrendering the priest’s personal proprietary claims. It distinguished diocesan priests, who do not take a vow of poverty, and property inherited from family, which the Society cannot claim. It directed the relatives, who had received the deposits during the appeals, to remit them within one month.

A Division Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan observed, “…When a man becomes 'professed in religion', his heir at once inherits from him any land that he has, and, if he has made a will, it takes effect at once as though he were naturally dead. If after this a kinsman of his dies intestate, leaving land which according to the ordinary rules of inheritance would descend to him, he is overlooked as though he were no longer in the land of the living; the inheritance misses him and passes to some more distant relatives. The rule is not that what descends to him belongs to the house of which he is an inmate; nothing descends to him for he is already dead. In respect of property in which the testator had acquired a pre-existing right of inheritance from his family, he could, subject to the governing law, deal with such right by making a testamentary disposition in accordance with his intention. Thus, he could bequeath or otherwise dedicate the property or the right inherited by him to the religious society. On the other hand, property acquired by him after entering religious life and finally taking the final vow cannot be treated as his individual property and such acquisitions were to be held for society and automatically vested in the society”.

Senior Advocate S. Subbiah appeared for the appellant and Advocate D. Sadiq Raja appeared for the respondent.

“…this Court considers the conduct of the parties not merely from the standpoint of their asserted proprietary rights, but also in the context of the religious commitments and obligations which, on the materials placed before this Court, both the priest and his relatives claimant had voluntarily undertaken. Such commitments cannot be treated as matters of mere form or as obligations capable of being invoked when convenient and disregarded when they operate against a claim to worldly property. Having regard to the solemn religious commitments undertaken by the parties, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the conduct in asserting proprietary claims contrary to those commitments is wholly inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ and with the conscience and moral obligations of the Christian faith which they profess now”, the Bench noted further.

Fr. Deivakumar Arulanantham was ordained on May 15, 1989 as a priest of the ABVM Society of the Catholic Apostolate (Pallottines) and died on February 24, 2018. He left six fixed deposits of Rs. 56 lakh at the State Bank of India, Kulithalai, made on October 10, 2017 in his own name from the sale proceeds of property bought in 2004. The Society relied on a document dated July 2, 1988 stating that it would have full right over his personal belongings and his family over the family inheritance.

His two brothers and his sister’s daughter sought a succession certificate in S.O.P. No. 6 of 2019, and the Society in S.O.P. No. 30 of 2019. On September 18, 2024, the Principal District Judge, Karur, tried both simultaneously, allowed the relatives’ petition and dismissed the Society’s. The Society appealed.

The Court held the document could not be proved as a will for want of attestation, but, as its execution was admitted, considered its substance as an undertaking. Placing reliance on Sital Das, Krishna Singh, Montfort Brothers and Sruti Seva Trust, it held that “civil death” is not literal, but marks a distinction between rights existing before entry into the order and property acquired afterwards.

“…This Court has already made it clear that, insofar as the properties acquired by the priest after his entry into the religious order, by reason of his office, service, personal occupation or other activities undertaken in his capacity as a priest of the religious society, are concerned, the beneficial interest therein cannot be treated as belonging to him personally merely because the title documents stand in his name. Such properties, having been acquired subsequent to his entry into the religious order and in the course of his religious vocation, are subject to the obligations undertaken by him and the governing principles of the religious institution. The position would, however, be different in respect of properties which came to him by way of inheritance or intestate succession from his family members. In respect of such inherited properties, the Society cannot claim an independent interest merely by reason of his subsequent entry into the religious order…”, the Bench said.

“…The principle that a religious institution may have an enforceable interest in property acquired by a priest in the course of his religious vocation is also supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the three-Judge Bench decision reported in (2014) 3 SCC 394, wherein the entitlement of the Society to claim compensation was recognised in the facts and circumstances of that case. The said decision lends further support to the proposition that the rights of the religious institution cannot be determined merely by reference to the name appearing in the title document, without examining the circumstances in which the property or the corresponding interest was acquired”, the Bench further said.

For the latter, it held the priest held the property in a fiduciary capacity, citing Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act and Canon 668. It found the relatives produced no evidence that the money pre-dated his entry, and distinguished a Kerala Division Bench ruling on a diocesan priest. It also held that a simultaneous trial instead of a joint trial was erroneous.

Cause Title: The ABVM Society of the Catholic Apostolate (Pallottines) v. A. Deiva Nayagam & Ors C.M.A.(MD) Nos. 560 and 623 of 2026

Appearances:

Appellant: Senior Advocate S. Subbiah, P. Jessi Jeeva Priya.

Respondent: D. Sadiq Raja, P.R. Prithiviraj, S. Anwar Sameen, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment