ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner is a religious institution. It was established sometime in the year 1940. A formal trust deed was registered in the year 1990. Quite a few ascetics were a part of the petitioner institution. One of them was Swami Karunananda. It is claimed by the petitioner that he was residing in the petitioner Ashram for 23 years and passed away on 22.02.2023. The deceased Sanyasi was having bank account as well as Fixed Deposits in the respondent banks. He died intestate without executing any Will. The petitioner wrote to the respondent banks for transferring the amounts lying to the credit of the deceased Sanyasi to the bank account of the petitioner. Copies of the representations dated 21.10.2023 addressed to them have been enclosed in the typed set of papers. Since the banks did not respond, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.

4.The learned standing counsel for the first respondent bank submitted that in the absence of direction from the court, the bank cannot be expected to act in the matter. Though the second respondent was served, there is no representation on their behalf. In any event, no order adverse to the interest of the second respondent is going to be passed.

5.I am more than satisfied that the one Swami Karunanda was a part of Shri Vivekananda Ashram. He maintained accounts with the respondent banks. He also had Fixed Deposits. The question is whether following his demise, the amounts lying in his accounts/deposits should be transferred to the petitioner's account.

6.The legal position is well settled. Once a person becomes a Sanyasi, he suffers civil death. Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 states that a Sanyasi cannot be a legal guardian. It has been held in many a decision that the property of a Sanyasi who has died intestate will not devolve on his blood relatives. Once a person becomes a Sanyasi, he acquires a spiritual family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in (1981) 3 SCC 681 (Shri Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir) held as follows :

“31. One who enters into a religious order severs his connection with the members of his natural family. He is accordingly excluded from inheritance. Entrance to a religious order, is tantamount to civil death so as to cause a complete severance of his connection with his relations, as well as with his property. Neither he nor his natural relatives can succeed to each other's properties. Any property which may be subsequently acquired by persons adopting religious orders passes to their religious relations. The persons who are excluded on this ground come under three heads, the vanaprastha, or hermit; the sanyasi or yati, or ascetic, and the brahmachari, or perpetual religious student. In order to bring a person under these heads it is necessary to show an absolute abandonment by him of all secular property, and a complete and final withdrawal from earthly affairs. The mere fact that a person calls himself a byragi, or religious mendicant, or indeed that he is such, does not of itself disentitle him to succeed to property. Nor does any Sudra come under this disqualification, unless by usage. This civil death does not prevent the person who enters into an order from acquiring and holding private property which will devolve, not of course upon his natural relations, but according to special rules of inheritance. But it would be otherwise if there is no civil death in the eye of the law, but only the holding by a man of certain religious opinions or professions [ Mayne : Hindu Law and Usage, 11th Edn., pp. 721-22] .

32. Special rules are propounded for succession to the property of a hermit, of an ascetic, and of a professed student. Yajnavalkya states a special rule of succession in regard to the wealth of ascetics and the like: “The heirs who take the wealth of a vanaprastha (a hermit), of a