PASTOR ANANDRAJ Vs. SADHU JESUDASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS of the case giving rise to this appeal are somewhat unusual in the sense that a church is aid to be in existence at No.22, Rangarajapuram, Nagarjuna Nagar 2nd street, Kodambakkam, Madras-24, but, according to the plaintiff"s/appellants, it, "was formed by Pastor G.Sam Daniel, in the year 1969", a Christian by birth and who turned to pantecost subsequently, and according to the defendants/respondents, who have entered appearance and contested the interlocutory applications, the first respondent, Sadhu Jesudasan, who is a born Christian and has renounced the worldly life, started prayer houses by putting up small thatched sheds at several places, "established a prayer house at Arcot Road, kodambakkam, Madras, in the year 1969. After some time, the vacant site at No.22, Nagarjuna Nagar 2nd Street, Rangarajapuram, Kodambakkam, Madras-24, was taken on lease. Subsequently, this property was acquired by way of settlement and sale for the Kirupasanam Church of Christ represented by the 1st respondent as its Founder and "President".

(2.) PLAINTIFFS have claimed that they are the devoted and dedicated servants of God, engaged in the preaching of Christianity and they are attached to the "Kirupasanam Church" situated at No.22, Rangarajapuram, Nagarjuna Nagar 2nd Street Kodambakkam, Madras-600024, which was formed by Pastor G Sam Daniel in the year 1969. Sam Daniel, a Christian by birth, and who turned to pantecost subsequently devoted his life for the sake of Jesus Christ and His Gospel. Attracted by his preachings and his devotion and dedication in the service of god, plaintiffs 2 and 3 joined the Kirupasanam Church of Christ as early as in the year 1970, leaving their lucrative positions, the first plaintiff being a M.B.B.S., Doctor and the plaintiff 2 and 3 being teachers by profession. According to the plaintiffs, Sam Daniel, who had been functioning at the Kirupasanam Church at No.22, Nagarjuna Nagar 2nd Street, Rangarajapuram, Kodambakkam, acquired properties at Ennore, Santhome, Annanur (near Ambattur), Rajiv Gandhi Nagar at Sakkadu and in North Arcot Ambedkar District for the purpose of establishing prayer houses. PLAINTIFFS, however, contributed finance for acquisition of such properties. The property at No.22, Nagarjuna Nagar 2nd Street, Madras-24, however, has been one donated by M.Nansi Ahmed, but, for all purposes remained in the hands of Sam Daniel, who administered the Churches, prayer houses and properties thereof. Sam Daniel wanted to nominate his successor to look after the functions of a pastor after his demise, and ordained the first plaintiff (appellant No.1) at a function held on 4.8.1991. The other two plaintiffs (appellants Nos.2 and 3) were also ordained to look after the ministry of work at the same function. Sam Daniel passed away on 25.4.1992. The first plaintiffs succeeded him and with the help of other two plaintiffs conducted the work of church as a pastor. The plaintiffs have alleged. "...annoyed and agitated by the growing name and fame of the plaintiffs and the Church, certain disgruntled elements, in cited by the first defendants, solely with a view to damage the reputation of the plaintiffs, and to grab the properties of the Kirupasanam Church, have started projecting as if they are the custodians of the properties of the Kirupasanam Church and its welfare activities and are trying to meddle with the affairs of the Kirupasanam Church. The plaintiffs, being persons who are concerned with the spiritual activities, are very much perturbed by the attitude of the defendants, as the defendants 1 to 7 herein, are bent upon driving the plaintiffs out from doing their services to God in the Kirupasanam Church at Kodambakkam, Madras-24, and also at other places, wherever the plaintiffs go for doing service to God. The plaintiffs state that they have been threatened by the defendants of forcible eviction from their place of worship". The case of the plaintiffs before this court is that the third defendant, in particular, spoiled the unity of the Kirupasanam Church at Kodambakkam with the assistance of the 2nd defendant and formed a Church at Adambakkam, Madras and "After this incident, he separated himself from the Churches run by Pastor G.Sam Daniel. Now, after the demise of Pastor G.Sam Daniel, he started his attempts to divide the believers into groups and instigated them to join with him. The plaintiffs state that especially, in Santhome Kirupasanam, Madras, the 3rd defendant and the believers to divide themselves into groups and also prevented the plaintiffs from servicing and worshipping. The plaintiffs submit that the 3rd defendant, with the assistance of his men and also with the assistance of the 6th defendant, forcibly entered the room occupied by the 2nd plaintiff." The plaintiffs have said about the 2nd defendant as follows: "The plaintiffs humbly submit that the 2nd defendant posing himself as an authority stopped the first plaintiff from conducting the Special Meetings and Services at the Kirupasanam Church, Kodambakkam, Madras, by locking the Church premises. He also lodged a complaint with the police about the first plaintiff, when the first plaintiff was praying in his room with new souls. But, the police authorities were not fully convinced about the merits of the complaint given by the 2nd defendant warranting any action against the 1st plaintiff. Now, also the 2nd defendant is not allowing the first plaintiff to conduct service in the churches at Kodambakkam (Madras) and other places". About the 4th, 5th and 6th defendants,the plaintiffs say (1) the 4th defendant, during a Special Meeting conducted by the Church on 30.10.1992 at Santhome Church, manhandled the first plaintiff' (2) the 5th defendant brought some letters purported to have been written by the 1st defendant to the plaintiffs and to the Church and there by created confusion in the minds of the worshippers, the 5th defendant claimed to have formed a committee and with the help of defendants 2, 3 and 7 tried to evict the plaintiffs from the Churches run by them' and (3) the 6th defendant was sent out of Kirupasanam, Salem, since he had bad remarks touching his conduct and character, yet, with the help of defendants 2 and 3 he has been conducting services at Churches at Kodambakkam and Santhome. He has also forcibly occupied the room which the 2nd plaintiff has been occupying (later removed with the help of police).

(3.) RULES that are invariably adopted by the courts in cases of interlocutory injunctions in aid of the plaintiff's right are that the courts usually consider whether the case is so clear and free from objection on equitable grounds that it ought to interfere to preserve property without waiting for the right to be finally established. This depends upon a variety of circumstances and it is stated in para 763 and 764 of Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd edition, Vol.21... it is impossible to lay down any general rule on the subject by which the discretion of the court ought in all cases to be regulated. The courts however adopt the rule that no interlocutory injunction is granted as of course, but it is granted when the three cardinal tests are fulfilled viz., (1) prima facie ease' (2) balance of convenience and (3) irreparable or serious injury. For the purpose of prima facie case, however, it is not necessary that the courts should find a case which would entitle the plaintiff to relief at all events. It is quiet sufficient if the court finds a case which shows that there is a substantial question to be investigated and the matters ought to be preserved in status quo until the question can be finally disposed of. It is found in para 765 in Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edition Vol.21: "Where the plaintiff is asserting a right, he should show a strong prima facie case, at least in support of the right which he asserts... Where any doubt exists as to the plaintiffs right or if his right is not disputed, but its violation is denied, the courts, in determining whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted, takes into consideration the balance of convenience to the parties and the nature of the injury which the defendant, on the one hand, would suffer if the injunction was granted and he should ultimately turn out to be right, and that which the plaintiff on the other hand, might sustain if the injunction was refused and he should ultimately turn out to be right. The burden of proof that the inconvenience which the plaintiff will suffer by the refusal of the injunction is greater than that which the defendant will suffer, if it is granted, lies on the plaintiff." The above has been the rule adopted in India almost without any exception from the earliest days of the courts in India started administration of justice. One learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Israil v. Shamsheer Rahman, l.L.R. 41 Cal. 436, after giving details as to the facts of the case, specifically said what should be the test applied by the courts for grant of any prayer of injunction, and quoted with approval a passage from a judgment of the Judicial Committee in the case of Walker v. Jons, (1866) L.R. 1 PC. 50. "The real point is not, how these questions ought to be decided at the hearing of the cause, but whether the nature and difficulty of the questions is such that it was proper that the injunction should be granted until the time for deciding them should arrive." It is in this context that the courts in India also frequently quote a passage from a judgment of the King's Bench Division in the case of Jones v. Pasava, (1911)1 K.B. 455: "It is quite sufficient if the court finds a case which shows that there is a substantial question to be investigated and that matters should be preserved in status quo until that question can be finally disposed of. The above view has also been expressed in a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Stare of Bihar v. Manmohan Das, A.I.R. 1964 Pat. 387:1984 B.L.J.R. 152, it will be difficult in the above situation of facts and the law to say that there is no prima facie case. Without there being a specific answer to the issues of fact who founded the congregation/church/prayer house and when now properties were acquired, from where came the considerations for such properties, who constituted the society aforementioned and how the society became a representative body of the denomination concerned or acquired the right to hold that properties that belonged to the denomination, etc., no verdict can go either in favour or against the plaintiffs. The instant case is one in which the rule of balance of convenience will embrace not only the interests of the plaintiffs and the defendants but also the interests of all such persons who have shown faith in the alleged church and if they have made contributions for the acquisition of the property, etc., have proprietory inter ests as well. It will be of course necessary to also keep in mind that the right to administer a property in itself is a property right but in case of a religious denomination or a section thereof such a right by dint of the constitutional mandate shall not be found in any individual but in the plurality of what is called the denomination or the section thereof. Those who shall come thus to administer wuch properties shall necessarily have a represen tative capacity unless that representative capacity is found in them, they cannot be dint of their claim alone be accepted as persons entitled to administer such properties belonging to the denomination or the section thereof. When we look, to the controversy as such it is difficult to accept that the plaintiffs/appellants have alone the entitlement to administer the church and the church properties. It is equally difficult to accept the case of the defendants that since they stand in the name of a society they have this right and none else. The only person entitled to administer however is sought to be ignored by both the plaintiffs and the defendants viz., those who have entered the congregation and who constitute the religious denomination concerned. Their interests cannot be allowed to be jeopardised by any act of either the plaintiffs or the defendants in the suit and it shall cause no injury to either the plaintiffs or the defendants if they (the denomination) are alone asked to devise their own method of administration of the properties of the denomination. This can be achieved by keeping the claim of both the plaintiffs and the defendants aside and entering into an arrangement under which the denomination gets the opportunity to devise its own administration. With this, in our mind, we put in particular pointed questions to the learned counsel for the parties and asked them to categorically state whether the parties are ready to accept such an arrangement under which the denomination/congregation concerned shall elect a committee of two persons who shall administer their properties, lead the congregation and do all such acts as the congregation is required to perform in course of its professing, practising and propagating their religion. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated before us that the respondents has stated before us that the respondents shall have no objection if a specific direction is given to those who are baptised and accordingly admitted to the denomination by Sam Daniel and thereafter by such other person, who had the authority to babtise, to elect their two representatives and accordingly permitting the two representatives elected by them: (1) to administer the properties of the denomination, and (2) to receive donations, contributions etc., provided any such donation/contribution is credited immediately in the name of the church and no amount of such contribution is appropriated or withdrawn by them without prior permission of the court except in so far as the congregation/ denomination at a meeting approved/ approves. Learned counsel for the appellants has, however, expressed the appellant's position and said that it will be going beyond the preservation of the properties etc. of the church in status quo if the appellants are not allowed to administer as they were doing from before. 8. In the facts, as above, it is a fit case, in our opinion for injunction/ direction which shall on the one hand, cause no substantial injury to either party and on the other hand protect the interests of the community at large. This can be achieved, in our opinion, by permitting the members of the church to reassert themselves and decide afresh as to who shall lead their congregations and prayers and who shall receive any contributions/charities grants, etc., on behalf of the church and administer all and any property that the church possesses/will possess. We are, for the said reason, inclined to order as follows: (1) Both the sides, the plaintiffs and the defendants are restrained from exercising any control or dealing with the properties of the church in any other manner' (2) Both sides, their representatives, agents and/or any other person claiming through them, are restrained from exercising any preeminent right to lead the congregation or the prayers in the church and accordingly restrained from exercising any such right. (3) All the followers of the church, however, may at their next assembly elect one or more that one person to lead the congregation and the prayer at the church, to administer the properties, and other affairs of the church and accordingly be in custody of the properties of the church. Person or persons so elected by the congregation, however, shall have no authority to do any act on behalf of the church except that which is specifically granted by the congregations of the followers of the church at a meeting and without obtaining prior permission of the court. (4) The defendants and/or any other person inlcuding the person authorised by the followers of the church to administer the properties of the church, etc., shall, however, not remove plaintiffs I and 2 with the present accommodation and shall not deny to them accordingly food and shelter that they have been receiving from the church in the past. The congregation, however, shall be free to provide accommodation/shelter and food to others in the same way as plaintiffs 1 and 2 are entitled to receive, but without in any manner affecting plaintiffs 1 and 2. (5) This order shall be in force until the disposal of the suit and shall be subject to the result of the suit. To achieve the above, however, it is necessary to ensure that elections are held at the earliest and conducted by someone, who can have the trust of all concerned. We are informed at the bar that Mr.Calvin Jacob, who is a fairly senior advocate of this court and professes a religion akin to the religion of the instant church , can be a suitable person to conduct the elections and carry out the directions of this court by calling a meeting of the congregations, after verifying the membership of each person and on being satisfied about the membership of all such persons at the earliest and accordingly conduct the elections of one or two persons as the congregation may decide at the first instance and then accordingly to hand over possession of the properties of the church to such person/persons elected by the followers at their meeting. We see no objection to this course and accordingly we appoint Mr.Calvin Jacob, Advocate, as the Commissioner on behalf of the court to call a meeting of the members of the church/ followers, to verify and accordingly satisfy himself about the membership of each individual and conduct election by such procedure that the congregation may decide by a voice-vote within ten days from the date of the warrant of appointment issued and served upon him. 9. The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and C.M.P.No.7434 of 1993 is disposed of in terms as directed above. There will be no order as to costs.