KNANAYA CATHOLIC CONGRESS KOTTAYAM Vs. BIJU UTHUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner filed I.A.42/90 in O.S.923/89 before The Additional Munsiffs Court, Kottayam to get himself impleaded as additional third defendant in that suit. This petition stands dismissed by the order under challenge.

(2.) Facts relevant and requisite to decide the question, whether the petitioner is entitled to get himself impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit, can briefly be stated thus:- The petitioner is the Knanaya Catholic Congress having its head office at Kottayam. The Congress is the only laity and secular organisation of the Knanaya Catholic Community and as such responsible to protect the lay interest of the community at large. The Congress therefore is entitled to get itself impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit where the plaintiff has prayed for the issue of a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to issue to him the 'Vivahakuri' for the conduct his betrothal and marriage. The facts stated in the plaint in this regard are: The plaintiff is a Knanayite and as such he is entitled to get the "vivahakuri" to conduct his marriage. With that in view he approached the Vicar of the Holy Family Catholic Church but the Vicar refused to issue the 'Vivahakuri'. He thereupon approached the Bishop. The Bishop was also not inclined to provide him with the 'Vivahakuri'. He then made the representation dated 26-6-1989 to His Holiness, the Pope for redressal of his grievances. The plaintiff's father made a separate complaint on 1-5-1989, to the Apostolic Pronuncio of India, New Delhi. Touching upon the reply the father received from the Apostolic Pronuncio of India, New Delhi, the plaintiff has stated thus in the plaint:--

(3.) It is clear from the above statement, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the subject matter of the litigation, at least incidentally, is a declaration as regards the status of the plaintiff and therefore, unless and until the plaintiff establishes that he is a member of the Knanaya community, he is not entitled to get the 'Vivahakuri'. The petitioner who represents the community will be in a position to place all the details regarding the custom and precedent of the community in regard to the marriage of a person belonging to the community before the court so that the court can effectually and completely adjudicate upon the controversy, the learned counsel argues.