Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 1349 - HC - Indian LawsInheritance of property - Seeking partition of the plaint schedule property excluding the first defendant - first defendant was at best a manager only who had suffered a civil death on becoming a priest - Court below has applied the principles of Canon Law ignoring the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - HELD THAT - It may be true that a Hindu ascetic or a Christian priest would sever his connection with the members of his natural family on entering into a religious order as per the prestine Hindu Law or the Canon Law. The ascetic or the priest in that sense may be said to have suffered a civil death making him ineligible to inherit a property either by intestate succession or testamentary succession. But the scenario has changed after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which only governs the parties as regards inheritance and succession. We are in perfect agreement with the decisions of the Karnataka High Court and Madras High Court that Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not make a departure in the case of a Christian priest or nun. There is absolutely no statutory prohibition for a Christian priest or nun in the matter of intestate or testamentary succession of property ofcourse in his/her personal capacity. Neither was any specific plea made nor any issue framed or evidence let in as regards the alleged custom amongst the diocesan priests to desist from holding property on entering into the Holy Order. To hold that one would suffer a 'civil death' and be deprived of his property on entering into the Holy Order would be a naked infringement of Article 300- A of the Constitution of India. Ofcourse it is the volition of a Hindu ascetic or a Christian priest to relinquish his right over his personal property in favour of a Mutt or Monastery in a manner known to law. But there cannot be any automatic deprivation of property acquired by way of intestate or testamentary succession by the mere fact that one has entered into the religious order and renounced his worldly pleasures - The finding of the court below that the first defendant did not derive any right over the plaint schedule property under Ext.B1 Will for the only reason that he had become a priest even before is unsustainable in law. The natural heirs are the children of George (who are the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 4) and the children of Eleeswa (who reportedly had died on 4.4.1961 leaving behind six children). The children of Eleeswa were not impleaded in the suit and there was no plea of non joinder of necessary parties either in the written statement and a remand of the case is hence unwarranted. Suffice it to say that there was a substantial representation for the estate and the children of Eleeswa shall be brought on record in the proceedings for the passing of a final decree. A preliminary decree for partition is accordingly passed declaring that half right would devolve on the children of George and the other half right on the children of Eleeswa. The extent of property covered by the two sale deeds (Document Nos.1020/1995 and 1737/1995) are however unavailable for partition since the first defendant had alienated the same. Any one of the parties are free to apply for the passing of the final decree in regard to the property remaining and allotted under Ext.B1 Will and the impugned decree is modified accordingly. The Appeal Suit is allowed and the memorandum of Cross Objections is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and legality of Ext.B1 Will and Ext.B2 Codicil. 2. Applicability of Canon Law versus Indian Succession Act, 1925. 3. Rights of a Christian priest under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 4. Competence of the first defendant to execute sale deeds. 5. Representation and inheritance rights of natural heirs. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity and legality of Ext.B1 Will and Ext.B2 Codicil: The court examined the validity of Ext.B1 Will and Ext.B2 Codicil. The plaintiffs argued that the first defendant, having taken a vow of poverty, could not inherit under Ext.B1 Will. The court found that the execution of Ext.B1 Will was duly proved under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as the attesting witnesses were deceased. The court upheld the due execution of Ext.B1 Will and Ext.B2 Codicil in the absence of any vitiating factors. 2. Applicability of Canon Law versus Indian Succession Act, 1925: The court emphasized that the Indian Succession Act, 1925, governs inheritance and succession for Indian Christians, overriding Canon Law. The court cited several precedents, including Mary Roy v. State of Kerala and Molly Joseph v. George Sebastian, affirming that statutory law prevails over personal law. The court stated, "It will be preposterous therefore to decide the civil rights of the parties based on the Canon Law which is only a norm internal to the church." 3. Rights of a Christian priest under the Indian Succession Act, 1925: The court ruled that a Christian priest does not suffer a civil death upon taking religious vows and remains eligible for inheritance. The court referenced decisions from the Karnataka and Madras High Courts, which held that there is no statutory prohibition for a Christian priest or nun to inherit property. The court stated, "The Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not make any departure in the matter of inheritance or succession to a Christian priest or nun whether or not he/she has taken a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience." 4. Competence of the first defendant to execute sale deeds: The court found that the first defendant, despite being a priest, was competent to execute sale deeds based on Ext.B1 Will. The court noted that the first defendant had executed two sale deeds (Document Nos.1020/1995 and 737/1995) in favor of the second defendant, which were deemed legal and valid. 5. Representation and inheritance rights of natural heirs: The court addressed the inheritance rights of the first defendant's natural heirs. It was noted that the first defendant died intestate, and his share should devolve on his natural heirs, including the children of George and Eleeswa. The court ordered a preliminary decree for partition, declaring half the right to the children of George and the other half to the children of Eleeswa. The court also directed that the children of Eleeswa be brought on record in the final decree proceedings. Conclusion: The court allowed the appeal suit and dismissed the memorandum of cross-objections, modifying the impugned decree to reflect the partition of property as per the rights of the natural heirs. The court reiterated the supremacy of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, over Canon Law in matters of inheritance and succession for Indian Christians.
|