MANAPPA MANIKAPPA SHEDED Vs. BHASKHRAPPA A BHASANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants -plaintiffs brought a suit in the representative capacity on behalf of all the members of the Christian community owing allegiance to the Organisation called the 'United Basel Mission Church in India' (U. B. M. C. I) for a declaration that the resolution of the District Church Council of the U. B. M. C. I. passed in May 1958 that the churches in Bombay -Karnataka area should join in the Church of South India (C. S. I.) was void and ultra vires of the Constitution and powers of the District Church Council of U. B. M. C. I and not binding on the plaintiffs. The suit was also for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from convening the meetings of the District Church Council or the North Karnataka Pradeshik Council and also restraining them from operating the accounts of the District Church funds, etc. The trial Court accepted the contentions of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit,

(2.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 being the President and Treasurer of the District Church Council of U. B. M. C. I. preferred Regular Appeal No. 99 of 1963 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bijapur. In the appeal counsel on both sides argued only two preliminary points, both related to the maintainability of the suit without going into the merits of the matter. The learned Judge accepted both the consortiums and allowed the appeal dismissing the suit.

(3.) IT seems to me that the learned Judge has taken a too narrow view of the matter. The cause of action as it is well accepted, is a bundle of essential facts and refers entirely to the media upon which the plaintiffs ask the Court to arrive at the conclusion in their favour. If one peruses the entire averments in the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiffs were aggrieved by the impugned resolution dated 22 -5 -1958 passed at Hubli. The effect of the resolution was that the Churches in Bombay -Karnataka area were compulsorily affiliated to 'Church of South India' which had absolutely no connection with the U. B. M. C. I. and the faith and order of the members of the two organisations were quite different from each other. The plaintiffs could not be compelled to change their faith even by the District Church Council of U. B. M. C. I. and therefore any action of the District Church Council of joining a new organisation in the entire Bombay -Karnataka area, would be void and ultra vires of the Constitution and powers. The substance of these allegations was that the plaintiffs must join the C. Section 1 whether they like it or not. Having regard to these averments in the pleadings, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have no cause of action at Bijapur to sue defendants 1 and 2 although the defendants were residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court.