JAMES PAUL ALEXANDER Vs. JAMES ARTHUR EDWARDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is directed against an order of the Stationary First Class Magistrate, Kuzhithurai refusing to withdraw the attachment effected under S.146 (1), Criminal Procedure Code over the Marthandom Church and to release the same to the possession of the present petitioners. They were counter petitioners 2 to 9 in S.C. No. 15 of 1124 which was a proceeding relating to a dispute of possession over the Marthandom Church. The lower court found that the petitioner to that proceeding was in possession of the disputed property on the relevant date and passed an order accordingly. This court vacated that order in Criminal Revision Petition No. 344 of 1124 and substituted in its place an order under S.146(1) keeping the property under attachment until a competent court determines the rights of the parties thereto or the person entitled to possession thereof. The counter petitioners to the proceeding thereafter instituted O.S. No. 121 of 1950 before the Kuzhithurai District Munsiffs Court for a declaration as to title and possession.

(2.) The dispute arose on account of difference of opinion between the members of the congregation as to whether the church should join a scheme of union to form the Church of South India or should remain outside the fold of that Union. The petitioner in the summary case belonged to the school of thought which opposed the Marthandom Church joining the Union while the counter petitioners belonged to the opposite school. They would seem to constitute the committee of the Marthandom Church as a unit in the Church of South India. Similar disputes existed in other L.M.S. Churches also and the affairs of one of them namely, the church at Kadamalakunnu went to court in O.S. No. 1 of 1124 of the Nagercoil District Court. That suit was decided by the District Court in favour of the protagonists of the Union and on the strength of that decision the application giving rise to this revision petition was filed by the present petitioners for withdrawal of the attachment and delivery of possession of the disputed church to them. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application and hence this revision.

(3.) Two grounds are seen mentioned in the order rejecting the application. One is that as the order under S.146(1) was passed by the High Court the Magistrate was incompetent to rescind or modify it. The other is that the decision of the civil court with respect to the Kadamalakunnu Church cannot be deemed to be a decision of a competent court regarding the title to or possession of the church in dispute here as contemplated by S.146(1). The first ground is really untenable and the learned counsel for the counter petitioners did not seek to support the order on that ground. The order which this court passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 344 of 1124 is the proper order which the Magistrate ought to have passed and it is meaningless to say that all further orders that may be found necessary in virtue of the provisions of S.146 should be passed by this court alone.