CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA Vs. BENOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the petitioners. The first plaintiff is the property Secretary and the second and third petitioners are the duly constituted attorneys of the C.S.I.T.A.C.S.I. Trust Association, diocese of North Kerala; The plaint schedule property measuring 5.13 hectares belongs to the C.S.I.T.A. St. Paul's Church, CMS PG L.P. School, C.S.I. High School for Deaf, Boys Hostel for Deaf, Girls Hostel for Deaf, C.S.I. Heritage, Parish Quarters, Cemetery and other ancillary buildings are situated in the aforesaid property. This property is abutting Guruvayoor-Kunnamkulam Road and is separated by a compound wall. The respondent had constructed a multi-storied building on the other side of the road. Since that building does not have sufficient space for parking of vehicles the Corporate Manager of the School was stated to have entered into an agreement with the respondent as per which 25 cents of the property belonging to C.S.I.T.A. was permitted to be used by the respondent for parking the cars coming to the multi-storied building. For that purpose the boundary wall of the aforesaid property was directed to be demolished. Petitioners contend that only the attorneys appointed by the C.S.I.T.A. who can act for the C.S.I.T.A. in matters of sale, lease or mortgage of property. As per the rules, the Diocesan, Executive Committee shall appoint a Diocesan Property Committee and a Diocesan Property Secretary from among the members of the Diocesan Council. It is further contended that for lease, mortgage or sale of the trust property, the approval of the Diocesan Property Committee and the Diocesan Executive Committee is required. The petitioners assert that no such permission was obtained by the Corporate Manager. Further as per S. 6 of the Kerala Education Act and R. 2 of Chapter X of Kerala Education Rules, 1959, the District Educational Officer alone is competent to give permission for creating any encumbrance over the school property. No such permission was obtained by the Corporate Manager. Thus the petitioners contend that the respondents should be restrained by a prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.

(2.) Respondent opposed the prayer for temporary injunction contending that the Corporate Manager had entered into a license agreement and as per the license agreement the respondent is parking the vehicle. It was also contended that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid by the respondent to the Manager. Besides, the daily license fee is also paid by the respondent to the Manager and since the license period is three years, the petitioners are not entitled to get an injunction.

(3.) The learned Munsiff granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from keeping the vehicles in the suit property. The respondent filed appeal. In the C.M. Appeal, the learned Addl. District Judge vacated the order of injunction and the injunction petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.