JACOB JOHN Vs. REV THOMAS WILLIAMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants who are 11 in number are the appellants. They are members of the London Mission Church at Kadamalakunnu in South Travancore. The plaintiff claims to be the pastor of that Church. The suit is for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to conduct service in the church as pastor and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing him in the conduct of such service. The main allegations in the plaint are the following: The plaint church belongs to the London Missionary Society Corporation incorporated in England. The Corporation acts in Travancore through its power of attorney holder, Rev. H. H. Eastaff (PW 3). The London Mission Churches in Travancore are in the possession and control of church workers appointed by appropriate councils and committees consisting of elected representatives of the churches. "The supreme body" that governed the churches was the Travancore Church Council (T.C.C.) which is now called the South Travancore Diocesan Council (S.T.D.C.). The London Mission Churches in Travancore were "in association with" the South India United Church (S.I.U.C.) till 26th September 1947 on which date the South India United Church resolved to dissolve itself and unite with the Church of England and the Methodist Church in South India to form the Church of South India (C.S. I.). The Travancore Church Council (T.C.C.) which was one of the eight Church Councils that formed the South India United Church was effectively represented in the negotiations for this union and it resolved by a 75% majority to accept the scheme of union proposed by the three negotiating churches. After the union the London Mission Churches in Travancore are "in association with" the Church of South India (C.S.I.) and the South Travancore Diocesan Council (S.T. D.C.) which has taken the place of the Travancore Church Council (T.C.C.) is now "the Supreme body" that governs the London Mission Churches in Travancore. The first defendant who was the church worker of the plaint church resigned his office and the plaintiff was appointed pastor of the church by the Bishop of South Travancore Diocese (PW 4). The defendants who had secured the key of the Church refused to open the church when the plaintiff wanted to conduct service in the church on 24-12-1123. The service had, therefore, to be conducted on the verandah of the church and the election of deacons also took place there. Thereafter, the power of attorney holder of the London Missionary Society Corporation authorised the plaintiff to enter the church and accordingly the plaintiff entered the church on 31-12-1123 and conducted service. While the service was about to finish the defendants entered the church with the help of the police, caused disturbance there and attempted to assault the plaintiff and others. Consequently the congregation was advised to disperse. According to the plaintiff, he alone has the right to conduct service in the church, and the church and its premises are in his possession in continuity of the possession of the London Missionary Society Corporation through its accredited agents and church workers for the last 150 years, and the defendants have no manner of right to obstruct him in opening the church and conducting service there. The plaintiff therefore prayed for a declaration that he is entitled to conduct divine worship, administer sacraments and solemnise marriages in the plaint church and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing him in opening the church and conducting such services. The defendants were impleaded in their individual capacity and not as representatives of the congregation of the church. The congregation was not made a party to the suit and no permission was sought by the plaintiff under O.I, R.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) All the defendants contested the suit. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement while defendants 3 to 11 filed another joint written statement. Identical contentions were raised in both the written statements. The following were the contentions: The plaintiff has never been the pastor of the plaint church. He was not validly appointed as pastor. The plaint church does not belong to the London Missionary Society Corporation. The Corporation does not own any properties except as trustees. The first defendant is the church worker and president of the church committee of the plaint church. Defendants 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are members of the church committee. The 2nd defendant is the Secretary and the 6th defendant the treasurer of the church. The members of the congregation are the beneficiaries of the church and the properties belonging to it. The first defendant did not resign his office as church worker. The power of attorney holder of the London Missionary Society Corporation has no possession of the London Mission Churches in Travancore nor of the properties attached to these Churches. Neither has he any control over the church workers. The Churches and properties attached to them are under the control and in the possession of church committees. The Travancore Church Council (T.C.C.) is not the supreme governing body of the London Mission Churches in Travancore. It has only certain limited powers conferred on it under the written constitution. It is not true that the South Travancore Diocesan Council is but a new name for the Travancore Church Council. The South Travancore Diocesan Council is a creation of the Church of South India and it has no authority over the London Mission Christians in Travancore. The South India United Church was only a federal union of certain Churches. Though the associate churches of this federal union could dissolve the union they were not competent to unite with other churches holding fundamentally different principles in matters of faith, doctrine and church government. The Travancore Church Council was not effectively represented in the negotiations for church union. It is not true that it resolved by a 75 per cent majority to accept the scheme of union. In any case it had no authority to accede to the union or to merge into the South Travancore Diocesan Council. The union is repugnant to the constitution, doctrines and rules of the Travancore London Mission Church. The plaintiff could not get admission into the plaint church and no service was conducted by him in the Church as alleged in the plaint. The defendants who are in lawful possession of the church have the right to prevent the entry of any unauthorised person into the church. The plaintiff has no possession of the church. The church was and continues to be in the possession of the church committee. The Episcopal Church of South India to which the plaintiff belongs is different in its fundamental doctrines, church government and other matters from the London Mission Church in Travancore. The plaintiff has become an alien to the London Mission Church and is therefore incompetent to conduct service in the plaint church. The defendants were all along opposing the proposed church union and had expressed their desire to continue as members of the London Mission Church. The plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. The suit is not of a civil nature and the plaintiff has no cause of action. The suit is unsustainable. Proper court fee has not been paid. For these reasons it was prayed that the suit should be dismissed with costs.

(3.) The contention relating to court fee was not pressed by the defendants. With regard to the contention that the suit was unsustainable it was not stated in the written statement why it was not sustainable. At the time of the final hearing of the case it was argued for the defendants that the suit was unsustainable by reason of the fact that necessary parties were not impleaded in the suit. It was argued that in the nature of the reliefs claimed in the plaint the plaint church, i.e., the congregation, ought to have been made a party to the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff replied that the plaintiff did not want any relief against the congregation and that he only wanted a decree against the defendants impleaded in the suit. The court below held that the plaintiff could not be compelled to make the congregation a party to the suit and decided the point in favour of the plaintiff.