JOHNY Vs. K T JOSEOH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is as to whether the compromise entered into by the parties is lawful in terms of Order III Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its Explanation. The suit is one for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to publish the photograph of the holy communion of the son of the plaintiff in the souvenir published by the defendants. A decree of prohibitory injunction was also sought restraining the defendants from releasing the Souvenir except with the photograph of the son of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE first defendant is a member of the Parish, the second defendant is the Convenor of the Magazine Committee and the third defendant was the Vicar of the Church. The suit was compromised by which the defendants agreed to keep the photograph of the holy communion of the son of the plaintiff in the church gallery. The compromise was entered into on 11-7-2008 and a decree was passed in the suit in accordance therewith. The third defendant had ceased to be a Cicar from 15-5-2008 and the church was represented by none on the date of the compromise. The bye laws of the church infact reflects that it can be represented only by the Vicar and the trustees jointly and not even by the present Vicar alone.

(3.) THE keeping of the photograph of the son of the plaintiff is in the property of Church over which the defendants have no custody or control. The church is not represented in the proceedings and the third defendant had ceased to be a Vicar as on the date of compromise . The trustees are also not parties to the suit or the compromise and the agreement is obviously unlawful under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. I am fortified in this view by the judgment of the division bench of this Court in Narayanan vs. Rajamany (1995 (2) KLT 351).