VARGHESE Vs. PATHROSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs 1 to 3, 6, 9 and 10 in O.S.No.95 of 1977 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam have come up in this appeal challenging the dismissal of the said suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs are the parishioners of the plaint schedule church namely, St.Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church, Vadavucode. The first defendant was the Vicar of the plaint schedule church. Defendants 2 and 3 were the trustees of the plaint schedule church elected by the parishioners to carry out the temporal administration of the church. The fourth defendant was a person assisting the religious services conducted in the plaint schedule church and the fifth defendant was the Headmaster of the Sunday School attached to the church. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule church is a constituent church of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church; that the constitution adopted by the Malankara Association on 26.12.1934 is binding on the plaint schedule church; that during 1973, a few members of the Malankara Church formed an organisation called Jacobite Association with a view to remove Parish Churches and other institutions of Malankara Church from out of the control of Catholicose and Malankara Metropolitan; that defendants 3 to 6 who are members of the said association convened a meeting of the Managing Committee of the plaint schedule church on 15.7.1974 with a view to remove the plaint schedule church also out of the hierarchy of Malankara Church and attempted to pass a resolution defying the authority of Catholicose and the Malankara Metropolitan and the constitution of Malankara Church. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendants are attempting to pass similar resolutions in the meeting of the parishioners also; that the plaint schedule church is a public trust; that the defendants have no right to alter the founding objects of the church or to adopt any new system of administration for the plaint schedule church; that the defendants have no authority to remove the plaint schedule church from out of the control and administration of the Metropolitans of Malankara Church and that the conducts of the defendants would amount to breach of trust. It is also alleged in the plaint that the nineth plaintiff is the present Vicar of the church appointed by the Diocesan Metropolitan and a parish assembly could be duly convened only by the nineth plaintiff or his successors appointed by Diocesan Metropolitan. It is further alleged in the plaint that the plaint schedule church is under the spiritual supervision and temporal control of the Cochin Diocese Metropolitan and that the defendants, in defiance of the constitution of the church, are obstructing the control and administration of the church and its institutions. The following are the reliefs sought for in the suit:

(3.) The defendants contested the suit, contending among others, that the plaint schedule church is a public trust; that there is an allegation of breach of trust and that the suit is for one of the reliefs provided for in Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the same is not maintainable as the plaintiffs have not obtained leave of the court to institute the suit.