P.E. THOMAS Vs. ABRAHAM JOSE ROCKY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Paradesi Synagogue is the oldest active Synagogue located at Jew Town, Cochin (at present known as 'Kochi'). It was built in 1568 for catering the religious needs of Cochin Jewish Community in the erstwhile kingdom of Cochin. Admittedly, this Synagogue is a religious trust. The appellants herein, the plaintiffs before trial court, would contend that the plaint schedule land and building had been dedicated to the Synagogue and it therefore forms part of a religious charitable trust of a public nature. They would contend that an assignment deed obtained by the 1st respondent from respondents 2 and 3 (who are the defendants in the suit) in respect of the plaint schedule property is void and it has to be set aside. Court below, by the impugned order passed on an interlocutory application, upheld the plea of the respondents that the appellants have no cause of action against them for instituting the suit and therefore the plaint was rejected by invoking Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, "the Code"). That order is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) Fundamental facts, relevant for a proper decision, are the following:

(3.) The appellants are tenants of various shoprooms in the building situated in the plaint schedule property. According to the appellants, apart from the tenancy right that they hold in respect of the property, they are also beneficiaries of the trust, going by the clear expressions in the trust deed. The deed of trust specifically spells out that creation of the trust is for preservation and maintenance of movable and immovable assets of the Cochin Synagogue, which includes the plaint schedule property as well. Although it is provided in the trust deed that the principal beneficiaries of the trust would be the jewish families living in Synagogue lane, Mattanchery, it is made clear that their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, et.al. who live overseas in Israel, United States, Canada and other countries would also be defacto beneficiaries. It is further stated that benefits of the said trust would be made available to jewish visitors to India too. It has been specifically stated that non-jewish residents of Kerala and India and non-jewish visitors would also gain from the trust, since the Synagogue and Jewish culture and heritage should be preserved for their benefit in the event that no Jewish person existed in Cochin at any given time. It is thus clear that the beneficiaries of the said trust are innumerable. The appellants therefore would contend that they are entitled to challenge the illegal alienation of the property effected by respondents 2 and 3 in favour of the 1st respondent.