ORDER Abdul Hadi, J. 1. This petition is for grant of Succession certificate in respect of the schedule mentioned bank balances said to have been left by the deceased Fr. Jacob Vettichirayil, a Roman Catholic Christian, Priest, who died on 10-6-1987. The petition is filed by Rt.Rev. Casmir Gnanadickam, Archbishop of Madras. 2. It is stated in the petition that since the deceased, prior to his death, had become a Christian priest, his schedule mentioned bank balances will pass, on his death, to his superior, viz., the petitioner herein. 3. But, I think this petition is misconceived. The inheritance law applicable to a person, who dies as a Christian, is contained in Part V of the Indian Succession Act. The first Section in the said Part is Section 29. Section 29(1) says that the said Part shall not apply to Hindus, Muhammadans, Buddhists, Sikhs or Jams. Section 29(2) reads as follows: Save as provided in Sub-section (1) or by any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of this Part shall constitute the law of India in all cases of intestacy. In view of this provision, with reference to Christians, the said Part V alone is applicable. No doubt Section 29(2) says "save as provided...by any other law for the time being in force...." The expression 'by any other law for the time being in force' appearing therein has been interpreted in the decision reported in Solomon v. Muthiah (1974) 1 M.L.J. 53 only as "any other enactment" and not "any customary or other law" relating to intestate succession. In the said decision, M.M. Ismail, J. as he then was held as follows: ...I am of the opinion that the language of Section 29(2) is incapable of being interpreted as saving the existing custom or law relating to intestate succession and the exclusion of the applicability of Part V can be achieved only by a specific provision in that behalf contained in any other enactment.... (emphasis is mine) So, unless there is some other statute, enacting a different law of inheritance, applicable to Christian priests like the deceased in this case, only Part V of the Indian Succession Act has to be applied to find out who is the heir to the above said deceased Fr. Jacob. No such different enactment was placed before me. (emphasis is mine) So, unless there is some other statute, enacting a different law of inheritance, applicable to Christian priests like the deceased in this case, only Part V of the Indian Succession Act has to be applied to find out who is the heir to the above said deceased Fr. Jacob. No such different enactment was placed before me. Then, as per Part V of the Indian Succession Act, the petitioner is admittedly not an heir to the deceased priest Therefore, the Succession Certificate prayed for, cannot be granted to the petitioner. 4. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in Mother Superior, Adoration Convent, Kanjiramatton v. D.E.O. Kottayam and Ors. (1977) 2 L.L.J. 450 (Ker.). There, a Christian nun had nominated the Mother Superior of her school to be the beneficiary to receive her retirement benefits and the question was whether the said nomination was invalid on the ground that the said Mother Superior did not come under the term 'family' in Rule 79 of Part III of Kerala Service Rules. In that context, the Court held that there was no impediment to nominate the said Mother Superior under the relevant Rule, on the ground that, with the taking of the perpetual vow, the person concerned ceased to have any connection with the members of the natural family and so far as the natural family was concerned, she was taken as dead and, therefore, her parents and other members specified in Rule 79 were not taken as blood relations thereafter. It was further held that the legal effect of a person becoming a nun was that she could not thereafter be considered as having a father or mother or other relatives mentioned in Rule 79. The said decision relied on the decisions reported in Sital Das v. Sant Ram and Kondal Row v. Swamulavaru A.I.R. 1918 Mad. 402 both of which dealt with a case of a Hindu becoming a monk or entering into a religious order. 5. But, this decision cannot have application to the present Original Petition, which seeks Succession Certificate under Indian Succession Act, on the natural death of the above said deceased on 10-6-87. 402 both of which dealt with a case of a Hindu becoming a monk or entering into a religious order. 5. But, this decision cannot have application to the present Original Petition, which seeks Succession Certificate under Indian Succession Act, on the natural death of the above said deceased on 10-6-87. In this connection, the following passage in Pollock and Maitland's History of English law, Vol.1, Page 434, cited by the Kerala High Court in the above said case may be usefully seen: A monk or nun cannot acquire or have any proprietary rights. 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, 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.... So, according to this passage, in the above said Kerala case, if the above said nomination was not there, the above said retirement benefits would have gone to her natural heirs and not to the Mother Superior. The said Kerala decision only dealt with the validity of the nomination made, in the light of the relevant Kerala Service Rules. The abovesaid Supreme Court decision also did not deal with the question as to who could inherit the property of a person, who entered such religious Orders. Nor it dealt with Section 29(2) of the Indian Succession Act. So, the said Supreme Court decision also is inapplicable to the present case. Likewise, the decision reported in Kondal Row v. Swamulavaru A.I.R. 1918 Mad. 402 also did not deal with the question actually involved in the present case. Therefore, that decision also has no application. 6. Nor it dealt with Section 29(2) of the Indian Succession Act. So, the said Supreme Court decision also is inapplicable to the present case. Likewise, the decision reported in Kondal Row v. Swamulavaru A.I.R. 1918 Mad. 402 also did not deal with the question actually involved in the present case. Therefore, that decision also has no application. 6. At any rate, as stated above, in view of the decision reported in Solomon v. Muthiah (1974) 1 M.L.J. 53 and the interpretation therein to the relevant expression in Section 29(2) of this Indian Succession Act, I am bound to apply only the law laid down in Part V of the Indian Succession Act to determine as to who is the heir or heirs to a deceased Christian on the date of his natural death. If Succession opens only on the civil death of such a person and not on his natural death, then, even applying the above said passage extracted from Pollock and Maitland's History of English Law, his property, on his civil death, should only go to his natural heirs. 7. Therefore, this petition by the petitioner, is not maintainable, and so dismissed.