VARKEY ITTAN Vs. KURUVILA MATHAI KATHANAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs 2 and 3 in O.S.No.19 of 1977 on the file of the District Court, Ernakulam have come up in this appeal challenging the dismissal of the said suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs are the parishioners and members of the Yogam of the plaint schedule church namely, St.George Orthodox Syrian Church. The first defendant was the Vicar of the plaint schedule church. The second defendant was the priest and defendants 3, 4 and 6 to 13 were the parishioners of the church. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule church is a constituent church of Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, hereinafter referred to as 'the Malankara church', for short, and is liable to be administered in accordance with the constitution adopted by the Malankara Association on 26.12.1934. It is the case of the plaintiffs that of late, a few members of the Malankara Church formed an organisation called Yacobaya Suriyani Christiani Association with a view to remove the Parish Churches under the Malankara Church from out of the control, constitution and hierarchy of Malankara Church and the first defendant is a sympathiser of the said association. It is stated in the plaint that on 23.3.1975, with a view to remove the plaint schedule church from the hierarchy of Malankara Church, the first defendant caused the second defendant to announce in the church that a parish meeting to elect the office bearers of the plaint schedule church will be held on 6th of April, 1975. According to the plaintiffs, only those parishioners who owe allegiance to the Catholicose and the Malankara Metropolitan and the constitution of the Malankara church are entitled to attend the meetings of the Parish Yogam or participate in the election to the office bearers of the plaint schedule church. It is the case of the plaintiffs that there are a number of persons in the plaint schedule church who defy the authority of the Catholicose and the Constitution of Malankara church and if a meeting of the plaint schedule church is permitted to be convened without settling the list of members entitled to participate in the Yogam, it is likely that the temporal administration of the assets of the plaint schedule church would go to the hands of the people who are opposed to the Catholicose and the constitution of Malankara church. The plaintiffs, in the circumstance, claimed the following reliefs in the suit: (a) Declaring that the plaint church is to be administered under the Episcopal authority of the Catholicose Malankara Metropolitan and the Kandanad diocesan Metropolitan of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church or whomsoever may succeed them in such offices and under the constitution of the said Malankara Church. (b) Prohibiting by a decree of injunction, the first defendant from holding any parish yogam of the plaint church on 6.4.75 or on other dates without preparing a list of persons entitled to participate in parish meetings as provided under the constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, restraining the defendants 3 and 4 from handing over their charge of office as Kaikars to any one not elected and appointed as Kaikars of the plaint church under the constitution of the Malankara church; and the 5th defendant or whomsoever may succeed him in office from approving the election of any office -bearers for the plaint church who is not accepting allegiance to the Catholicose Malankara Metropolitan and the constitution of the Malankara church and all the defendants from doing any act in denial of the Episcopal authority of the Catholicose Malankara metropolitan Moran Mar Baselies Ougen I or whomsoever may succeed him in office and the constitution and authority of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian church. (c) Directing the contesting defendants to pay the cost of this suit and (d) Granting such other reliefs as are just and proper in the circumstances of this case, to preserve the plaint church and a constitution.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit, contending mainly that the plaint schedule church is being administered in accordance with the decision taken in the pothuyogam of the church on 15.7.1952 and the 1934 constitution is not binding on the plaint schedule church. It was also contended by them that the plaint schedule church is a public trust and therefore the suit filed without obtaining leave of the court as provided under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable.