K P LUTHER BABU Vs. REV J VIJAYARATHNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rev. K.P. Luther Babu, a Pastor of South Andhra Luthern Church, hereinafter in short referred to as "SALC" aggrieved by the Judgments and decrees made in O.S.No. 101/98 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati and in A.S.No.34/2001 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, had preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as "Code", as against Rev. J. Vijayarathnam as 1st respondent and Rev. Ch. Rajarathnam, yet another Pastor of SALC, as 2nd respondent.

(2.) Sri M.S. Prasad, Counsel representing the appellant had pointed out that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present Second Appeal:

(3.) Per contra, Sri Sridhar Reddy, Counsel representing the respondents at the outset had submitted that SALC is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and no doubt at present the said Act was repealed by the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. The learned Counsel further submitted that when the proceedings of the 1st respondent/1 st defendant had been questioned, he should have been impleaded in his official capacity and not in personal capacity and hence the suit as framed is definitely not maintainable in view of Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The learned Counsel no doubt in all fairness submitted that this question was not raised before the courts below, but however since it is a pure question of law relating to the maintainability of the suit, the same can be raised at any time even in the Second Appeal. The learned Counsel also submitted that whether a particular decision is a policy decision or a mere administrative decision or one concerned with management, predominant/ would be a question of fact and there is no acceptable material placed before the courts below for arriving at a conclusion that it being a policy decision, the impugned orders made are in violation of an injunction which was operative as against the 1 st respondent/1 st defendant at the relevant point of time and hence the courts below had recorded correct findings in this regard. The learned Counsel also submitted that in the written statement specific plea was taken that the transfer of a Pastor from Parish to Parish for administrative reasons definitely is not a policy decision and it is absolutely the discretion vested in the Bishop-President. The learned Counsel also would maintain that when the proceedings of SALC as such are questioned before a Civil Court, it is surprising that how a suit can be maintained at all in the absence of the said SALC, a necessary party to the suit. The leaned Counsel pointed out that the subsequent event of the bar of age of the 2nd defendant will not ensure to the benefit of the appellant/ plaintiff since the question that has to be decided is whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for in the present suit and nothing more. The Counsel would conclude that at any rate in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, in the absence of a substantial question of law, such findings cannot be disturbed in the light of the limitations imposed on this court under Section 100 of the Code.