New Delhi: Can the family of a deceased Catholic priest inherit money held in his bank account if the funds came from property he acquired after joining a religious order?
The Madras High Court has ruled in favour of the religious society to which the priest belonged, holding that his relatives could not claim the money merely because they were his legal heirs.
The dispute concerned six fixed deposits worth Rs 56 lakh left by Rev. Father Devakumar Arulanantham, who died on 24 February 2018. His two brothers and a niece claimed the money as his legal heirs. The ABVM Society of the Catholic Apostolate (Pallottines), however, argued that the deposits belonged to it because the priest had taken religious vows and undertaken to surrender his individual claim over property acquired after joining the order.
A division bench of Justices N. Anand Venkatesh and K. K. Ramakrishnan allowed the society’s appeals on 13 October, setting aside a 2024 order of the Principal District Judge, Karur, which had granted the relatives a succession certificate.
The judgment turned on the source of the money, the priest’s religious commitments and the significance of a handwritten document that he had signed before becoming a priest.
A disputed document & two competing claims
Arulanantham was ordained (formal appointment as priest) on 15 May 1989 and served at different places under the ABVM society. The money in dispute came from a property he purchased in Bengaluru in 2004 and sold later. The sale proceeds were placed in six fixed deposits with the State Bank of India’s Kulithalai branch in Tamil Nadu on 10 October 2017.
The deposits stood in his name. After his death, his brothers, A. Deiva Nayagam and A. Joseph, and his niece, P. Mary Jameela, approached the district court seeking a succession certificate. The society subsequently filed a separate petition claiming the same deposits.
The society relied on a handwritten document dated 2 July 1988, titled “My Last Will”. It stated that the society would have full rights over the priest’s personal belongings, while his family would retain rights over family inheritance.
The relatives argued that the document could not be enforced as a Will because it lacked the attestation required under law.
The high court agreed that it was not a valid Will. But it held that the document could still be considered for a different purpose: As evidence of an undertaking the priest had made in connection with entering the religious order. The court examined it alongside the society’s rules and Canon Law, the internal law governing the Catholic Church.
The bench did not validate the document as a Will distributing property after death. Instead, it considered what the document revealed about the priest’s commitments and his claim to property acquired after joining the order.
Why the source of the money mattered
The court placed weight on the fact that the Bengaluru property was purchased in 2004, long after Arulanantham joined the religious order. It noted that his brother had acknowledged that the priest earned income through motivational speeches and used his earnings to buy the property. The brother also admitted that there was no record showing he had contributed to its purchase or to the deposits.
For the bench, the fact that the deposits stood in the priest’s name did not, by itself, settle who was entitled to the money. Ownership had to be examined in light of the source of the funds, the obligations undertaken by the priest and the rules governing his religious order.
The court also referred to Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act, which deals with situations where a person in a position of trust gains an advantage for themselves. It considered this provision along with Canon Law and the society’s rules while deciding who was entitled to the money.
The bench discussed the concept of “civil death” associated with entering a religious order. In this context, it refers to renouncing worldly interests and relationships, it does not mean that a priest ceases to exist as a legal person or loses all civil rights. The bench relied on Supreme court judgment in Sital Das vs Sant Ram (1954).
The court also drew a distinction between priests who enter religious orders and take vows involving renunciation of property, and diocesan priests, who do not assume the same obligations merely by becoming priests.
It also separately clarified that property independently inherited from family cannot automatically be claimed by a religious society.
Biblical teachings and the final order
The court criticised the relatives’ claim as inconsistent with the Christian principles of renunciation and restitution. However, it clarified that the religious writings were cited to illustrate these principles, not as independent sources of legal authority.
Allowing the society’s appeals, the high court set aside the district court’s order and ruled in favour of the society. Since the relatives had already received the deposit amount during the appeal, it directed them to return the money within one month of receiving a copy of the judgment. If they failed to do so, interest at 9 percent per annum would apply from the date of judgment until payment.
The ruling rests on the specific circumstances of Arulanantham’s vows, the source of the deposits and the undertaking considered by the court. It does not establish that every asset belonging to a priest automatically goes to a religious institution, or that family members can never inherit a priest’s property.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Madras HC invokes national security to junk zen meditation centre’s challenge to FCRA refusal