VELAYUDAM THANKAYYAN Vs. REV G W T TROWELL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are intimately related to each other, and spring from the subject matter of the same controversy and the same litigation. Hence, we are disposing of them by means of a common judgment. But it will be most convenient to deal first with L. P. A. 13 of 1963, which alone can be said to present any problems in adjudication. L. P. A. 12 of 1963, as we shall presently show when dealing with it, is of a very restricted scope, and can be effectively disposed of in a few lines.

(2.) AS far as L. P. A. 13 of 1963 is concerned, the second appeal from which it now arises, was instituted before Ramakrishnan J. by the seven plaintiffs, the respondent being James Arthur Edwards (defendant-1 ). It is essential to turn to the facts of the litigation from which this second appeal ultimately emerged, which was O. S. 121 of 1950 before the learned District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. The nine plaintiffs who brought forward that action of whom the first plaintiff was the attorney of the L. M. S. Corporation of the London Missionary Society, advanced the case that, in 1946, the Travancore Church Council accepted a scheme of union which resulted in the formation of the Church of South India. The validity of that union, in the context of the congregational practices of the constituent churches of the Travancore Church Council and the tenets of the newly formed church of South india, has been the subject matter of controversy in this litigation, and related litigations, disposed of by common judgments at very considerable length; but, for the restricted purposes of this appeal, it is quite unnecessary to proceed into this controversy, which may be not improperly termed as partaking of several characteristics of a theological dispute, although not without its legal aspects also.

(3.) THE action that now concerns us related to the Church of Martandan, and was preceded by certain proceedings under S. 143 of the Travancore Cochin Criminal p. C. in the court of the local first class Magistrate. There was a magisterial enquiry, and then, a revision to the High Court. The ultimate result was that the church property, which is the main subject of dispute, was kept under a pending attachment, and the parties were referred to a civil court with regard to the right to possession. The plaintiffs claimed that the first defendant (James Arthur edwards, here appellant), had absolutely no right to possession of the Church property, that he was never in such possession, and that he should now be directed to surrender possession, and not to disturb or interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs and their conduct of the rituals and ceremonies of the church, in accordance with the Church Union, in the Church at Marthandam. The first defendant (appellant) put forward pleas inter alia that the L. M. S. Corporation was merely a Trustee for the L. M. S. Church, that the true beneficiaries, as far as the Marthandam Church was concerned, were the members of the London Mission congregation in the Township, that the first defendant was the elected Secretary of the Church Committee, and that the Travancore Church Council was incompetent to liquidate the Congregation, so to speak, and to bring about the union that we have earlier referred to, thereby acquiescing in practices and tenets that are alien to the congregational worship. The suit was hence liable to be dismissed with costs.