ST GEORGE GRACY MEMORIAL CHURCH Vs. ANNAMMA JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court in a suit for declaration that the plaint item Nos.2 and 3 are trust properties, that the purchase certificates issued in the name of 2 nd defendant do not bind the trust property and also for removing the 1 st defendant from management of the private trust having name "St.George Gracy Memorial Church, Parathodu and for other reliefs, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendants.

(2.) Short facts are thus: Plaintiff and 1 st defendant are sisters. 2 nd defendant is the husband of 1 st defendant. 3 rd defendant is the son of defendants 1 and 2. Deceased Koshy, father of the plaintiff and 1 st defendant, constructed a church with a cemetery in memory of his daughter Gracy in plaint item No.1. The church was named as "St.George Gracy Memorial Church, Parathodu". The property on which the church is situated is having an extent of about 2 acres. A private trust was constituted by deceased Koshy. Till death, Koshy was managing the affairs of the church. After his death, Ext.A1 deed was executed in the year 1952. It is styled as an "udambadi". The property in which the church is situated is shown in E schedule to Ext.A1. 2 nd defendant clandestinely obtained purchase certificates in respect of the property belonging to the private trust. Those documents are not binding on the plaintiff and the church. According to the plaint averments, the church is a private trust though outsiders were allowed to conduct prayers and ceremonies like marriage, baptism, etc, in the church. Dead bodies were also allowed to be buried in the cemetery. However the church retained the character of a private trust. According to the plaint averments, Exts.B3 and B4 purchase certificates in the name of the 2 nd defendant are fraudulent documents and do not bind the church and its properties.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement contending that the suit as instituted is not maintainable for want of sanction under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, "CPC"). They questioned the locus standi of the plaintiff to represent the church. Defendants contended that the church has no right over item Nos.2 and 3. According to them, those properties belonged to the 2 nd defendant in tenancy right and he obtained the purchase certificates through a Land Tribunal after complying with all the formalities. No reliefs can be granted in respect of plaint Item Nos.2 and 3. Defendants 4 and 5 also filed a written statement supporting the contentions of defendants 1 and 2.