C S ROBERT Vs. M KANAGAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question regarding administration of a church, to be precise, a Catholic Church, by name, St.Mary Magdalin Church situate in a village called, Vakkampatti in Dindigul taluk is the subject matter of the appeal. There is no dispute regarding the exercise of spiritual power of the church by Papacy through its local representatives, the Episcopate and the local Parish Priest as the plaintiffs have conceded that the spiritual power should be exercised by the Parish Priest of the Church. The question is only with reference to the temporal or administrative power over the Church and the exercise of the said administrative power.

(2.) The plaintiffs, who are the appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal, have instituted the suit for declaration that the suit Church and the suit properties belong to the entire Catholic public of Vakkampatti village with consequential injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 4 from interfering with the management and administration of the suit Church and its properties by the plaintiffs as trustees and for removal of the first defendant from trusteeship and for directing the first defendant to deliver the management of the Church and its properties to the plaintiffs and also for certain other reliefs. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs as trustees of the church and as representatives of the Catholic Public of Vakkampatti village. Though a point was raised whether the suit is maintainable without obtaining the leave under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we find that necessary prior permission to institute the suit has been obtained by the plaintiffs in the trial Court itself before the institution of the suit.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit Church was constructed in a Village Natham more than 200 years prior to the institution of the suit by the Catholic public of Vakkampatti by collecting donations and taxes from the public and by contributing their physical labour and on this fact, there is no dispute between the parties. It is pleaded that the Church was constructed by the entire Catholic public under the supervision of Nattanmais and Periyathanams of the said village. It is stated in the plaint that for the proper administration of the church and its properties, a Committee of five members headed by the Nattanmai, C.Savarimuthu, father of the first plaintiff was formed 90 years prior to the institution of the suit. It is also stated that though a Parish Priest was there, he never exercised any right, ownership or control over the Church at any point of time. It is further stated that for the administration and management of the church and its properties, out of the five members of the Committee, three were appointed by public and the office of trusteeship has been made hereditary. (However, the plaint does not disclose how those three persons elected by the public can hold the office hereditarily. The plaint does not also disclose how the other two members were appointed. The evidence of P.W.1 also does not disclose anything about the mode of appointment of other two members of the Committee). It is the case of the plaintiffs that during the long and continuous usage of the institution, the management vested in the trustees of the Committee and the period of management of the Managing Trustee is stated to be one year and the change in management of the Managing Trustee was coincident to the Church festival held in the month of June, every year. It is stated that at the end of the Festival, the amount collected for the festival would be shown to the public in a General Body Meeting and accounts would be approved and the balance amount would be shared by the trustees. It is stated that the two plaintiffs and the first defendant are the three trustees and they are in management of the Church and its properties. It is their case that the first plaintiff has spent a sum of Rs.40,000/- for the construction of a portion of the Church and he has to get reimbursement of the said sum and the first defendant also agreed for the same. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant who is one of the trustees, is not maintaining a true and correct account of the income and expenditure of the Church and its properties and he is misappropriating the income from the Church and its properties. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first defendant has been making arrangements to transfer the Church and its properties to the Arch Bishop of Trichy Diocese, the fourth defendant in the suit. It is stated that the fourth defendant is superior to the defendants 2 and 3 and the defendants 2 and 3 have been, in the ordinary course, acting on the instructions of the fourth defendant. It is stated that the first defendant has no right to execute any document transferring the right or title of the Church and its properties to anybody as they belong to the entire Catholic public of Vakkampatti village, nor he has the power or authority to make any encumbrance over the properties without the consent and permission of other trustees and the Catholic public of Vakkampatti village. It is stated that the management has been throughout with the trustees by inheritance and by rotation among themselves. It is stated that the defendants 2 to 4 have no right to conduct the festival of the Church. Hence, the plaintiffs, as trustees of the Church as well as representatives of the Catholic public of Vakkampatti village, have filed the suit for necessary declaration and injunction as set out earlier.