GHEEVARGHESE KOSHY Vs. CHACKO THOMAS OF PALLIMADYIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Trial Court appointed the 2nd defendant and another as receivers pending

(2.) Four parishioners of the Kadeesa Church at Kayamkulam iled the suit in their individual capacity and representing the other parishioners and also on behalf of the Church itself. In the plaint they alleged that the Church was bound by a trust in favour of the Jacobite Syrian Community subject to the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch. Defendants 1 to 15 were elected as a committee to manage the affairs of the Church at a meeting held on 15th March 1959. The validity of this meeting and the authority of defendants 1 to 15 to manage the affairs of the Church are questioned by the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the Church was being managed by a validly constituted committee consisting of defendants 1, 9 and 22 to 26 under an earlier order of 10th August 1958 issued by the 21st defendant, who was the Metropolitan. On these allegations the plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that the meeting of 15th March 1959 and the proceedings of that meeting were invalid; for restraining defendants 2 to 20 and others belonging to their party from interfering with the administration of the Church; and also for the appointment of a receiver for collecting the income and producing it in court. There was also a prayer for framing a scheme for the management of the Church. The temporary injunction was granted pending the above suit with the aforesaid prayers.

(3.) The main contention of the defendants was that the Church was a public charitable trust and that the suit was hit by S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure as there was a prayer for framing a scheme. On that ground the contesting defendants prayed that the suit might be dismissed, as it was not presented in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction; nor was it filed with the consent of the Advocate General. The written statement was filed after I called for the finding from the Trial Court. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed a replication, in which they alleged that the Church was not a public trust and that they did not press the prayer for framing the scheme. After considering the aforesaid relevant allegations in the pleadings, the learned Munsiff has submitted the finding already referred to.