High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-10-23Dismissed. No costs.

CRP No. 247 of 2016 (O.P. (Trust) 335/2015, IV Additional District Court, Thrissur)

Case / Petition Number:CRP No. 247 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. M. Babu
Judgment Date: 2019-10-23
Court Decision / Holding: Revision petition dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Dismissed. No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

St George Orthodox Syrian Church Chelakkara represented by Trustee Joy KC (Joy K.C)
Fr. Isaac K.P S/o Paulose, St George Orthodox Syrian Church, Chelakkara

Respondents

Joseph C. C. S/o Chakkappan, Cheruvathur House, Anthimahakalankavu, Chellakkara Post, Thrissur District
Johny V.P S/o Paulose, Vadakkan House, Venganallur Post, Chellakkara, Thrissur District
Varghese P.M S/o Mani, Palappillil House, Killimangalom, Chellakkara Post, Thrissur District
George C.K S/o Kunjappan, Chunkath House, Chellakkara Post, Thrissur District
Joy K.C S/o Chummar, Koothoor House, Vengaanallur, Vengaanallur Post, Chellakkara, Thrissur District
Fr. Thomas NediyaPALACKAL S/o Paulose, Vazhani Post, Virappaka Village, Talappilly Taluk, Thrissur District
Johnson S/o Cheru, Cheruan House, Thonnoorkara Post, Talappilly Taluk, Thrissur District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K.R. Jinan
• Sri P.G. Jayashankar
• Sri Reshma Raju
• Sri P. Sreelakshmi

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri P. Prijith
• Sri S. Sreekumar Sr.
• Sri Thomas P. Kuruvilla
• Sri P. Martin Jose (Caveator)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Civil Revision Petition arises from an O.P. (Trust) 335/2015 filed before the IV Addl. District Court, Thrissur, seeking the leave of the district court under Sec. 92 CPC to institute a suit for multifarious reliefs concerning the Malankara Church’s administration. The petitioners, who are the parishioners claimed to align with the 1934 constitution of the Malankara Church, sought reliefs including administration of the first respondent church in accordance with the 1934 constitution, directions to convene a parish assembly, elections of trustees and managing committee members, accounts rendering, and restraint on non‑constitutionally appointed clergy from officiating. The petition was allowed by the lower court, and leave granted for trial. Respondents 1–4 and 6–9 contested, raising objections on locus standi, authenticity of the edavaka register, limitation, and res judicata. The High Court notes that the authenticity of the register cannot be decided at this stage and that the petitioners have prima facie case; it also cites KS Varghese v. St Peter’s Syrian Orthodox Church to confirm that the 1934 constitution can be invoked in such proceedings. Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision as not warranting interference with the district court’s order, directing each party to bear their own costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec. 92 of CPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Locus standi
Res judicata
Limitation (statutory)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that they are parishioners of the first respondent church and seek leave under Sec.92 CPC to institute a suit for multifarious reliefs. They asserted that administration of the church should be governed by the 1934 constitution, and that a parish assembly should be convened to elect trustees and office-bearers under that constitution. They asked for accounts from those in religious administration and for restraining others from appointing prelates not under the 1934 framework. They argued that the edavaka register proves their parishioner status, and that the Supreme Court has upheld the 1934 constitution’s applicability in similar disputes (citing KS Varghese). A prima facie case was found to exist, and the matter should proceed to trial, with the authenticity of the register to be tested during trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents opposed the leave, challenging the petitioners’ locus standi and questioning the authenticity of the edavaka register. They also argued that the suit raises issues barred by limitation and potentially res judicata, and that resolutions of church administration should not be determined at this stage without proper adjudication. They stressed that the matter involves internal disputes within a religious trust and that the law requires careful scrutiny of title, trust duties, and authority to appoint church officers, which cannot be summarily decided at the leave stage.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
K.S.Varghese v. St Peter's Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church	(2017) 15 SCC 333	Positive	The High Court notes that the 1934 constitution relied upon by the petitioners has been upheld by the Supreme Court in KS Varghese v. St Peter's Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church, thereby supporting the petitioners’ locus to invoke the 1934 constitution in proceedings under Sec.92 CPC.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against CRP No. 247 of 2016 (O.P. (Trust) 335/2015, IV Additional District Court, Thrissur) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU** **WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **CRP.No.247 OF 2016** **OP 335/2015 DATED 22-03-2016 OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 5 AND 7** - **1 KURIAKOSE C V S/O VARU, CHEMMANNUR HOUSE, CHELAKKARA POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **2 JOY S/O ITTOOP, KUNDUKULAM HOUSE, VENGANALLUR POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.JINAN SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR SMT.RESHMA RAJU SMT.P.SREELAKSHMI** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AND 6** **1 JOSEPH C C S/O CHAKKAPPAN, CHERUVATHUR HOUSE, ANTHIMAHAKALANKAVU, CHELAKKARA POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680586** **2 JOHNY V.P S/O PAULOSE, VADAKKAN HOUSE, VENGANALLUR POST, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680586** **CRP.247/2016** 2 - **3 VARGHESE P.M** - **S/O MANI, PALAPPILLIL HOUSE, KILLIMANGALAM, CHELAKKARA POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680586** - **4 GEORGE C.K** - **S/O KUNJAPPAN, CHUNKATH HOUSE, CHELAKKARA POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680586** - **5 ST GEORGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH CHELAKKARA, REPRESENTED BY TRUSTEE, JOY KC,S/O CHUMMAR, KOOTHOOR HOUSE, VENGANALLUR POST, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680586** - **6 JOY K.C S/O CHUMMAR, KOOTHOOR HOUSE, VENGANALLUR, VENGANALLUR POST, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680586** - **7 FR. ISAAC K.P S/O PAULOSE, ST GEORGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680586** - **8 FR. THOMAS NEDIYAPALACKAL S/O PAULOSE, VAZHANI POST, VIRAPPAKA VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **9 JOHNSON S/O CHERU, CHEERAN HOUSE, THONNOORKARA POST, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680581** - **BY ADV. SRI.P..MARTIN JOSE (CAVEATOR)** - **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH** - **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SR.** - **R1 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA** 3 ## **CRP.247/2016** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.9.2019, THE COURT ON 23.10.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CRP.247/2016** 4 ## ORDER 1. Parties are referred to in this order as they are shown in the cause title to the impugned order. The petitioner filed O.P. (Trust) 335/2015 seeking leave of the district court under Sec.92 of CPC for instituting a suit for multifarious reliefs. Grant of leave was opposed by respondents 1, 5, 6 and 7. After hearing the parties and considering their contentions, the learned additional district judge allowed the original petition and granted the leave sought for. Respondents 5 and 7 have come in revision challenging the order granting the leave. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer appearing for respondents 5 and 7 who filed the revision, the learned senior counsel Sri.S.Sreekumar appearing for the petitioners who filed the original petition and all other learned counsel appearing for the other parties. 3. The first respondent is a church. There are disputes **CRP.247/2016** 5 between two factions of the Malankara church regarding the ownership, possession,administration, management et cetera of the first respondent church. The petitioners claim to be the parishioners of the first respondent church. They sought leave to institute a suit to seek the following reliefs, namely, (i) to declare that the first respondent church shall be administered in accordance with the 1934 constitution of the Malankara church by the parishioners who have allegiance to the said constitution, (ii) to direct respondents 3 and 4 to convene the parish assembly of the first respondent church and to conduct election of trustees, members of the managing committee and other office bearers in accordance with the 1934 constitution, (iii) to direct respondents 4 and 5 to render the accounts of the first respondent church, (iv) to restrain respondents 6 and 7 and their men by injunction from causing any obstruction to the third respondent or his successors appointed under the provisions of the 1934 constitution from discharging the functions and **CRP.247/2016** 6 duties of the vicar of the church and (v) to restrain respondents 4 to 7 and their men from bringing any prelate/vicar/priest not appointed under the 1934 constitution for conducting the religious services in the first respondent church and its cemetery and different 'kurisupally' and also from causing any obstruction to the third respondent or his successors and the trustees elected in accordance with the 1934 constitution from taking income from the property of the said church. 4. The reliefs the petitioners intend to seek by suit do fall within the ambit of Sec.92 of CPC. The first respondent is a church and it cannot be disputed that it is a public religious trust rendering religious services to the Jacobite christians. The petition contains allegations touching breach of the religious trust. The locus standi of the petitioners to sue is one of the objections raised by respondents 1, 5, 6 and 7 (hereinafter referred to as the contesting respondents). The petitioners have alleged in **CRP.247/2016** 7 the petition that they are the parishioners of the first respondent church. The allegation is denied by the contesting respondents. The learned additional district judge perused the copy of a register titled 'edavaka register' and said that the same would disclose the petitioners to be parishioners of the first respondent church. The authenticity of the register is challenged by the contesting respondents, but, as rightly stated by the additional district judge, its authenticity cannot be decided before trial. It cannot be said at this stage that the petitioners have no locus standi to sue. The 1934 constitution relied on by the petitioners has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India in K.S.Varghese v. St Peter's Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church [(2017) 15 SCC 333] . The petitioners have a prima facie case which should go for trial. 5. The suit is barred by the law of limitation and the trial is hit by res judicata are the other two contentions raised by **CRP.247/2016** 8 the contesting respondents. No positive conclusion on those matters can be had at this stage. 6. This court is called upon to decide a revision and not an appeal. The learned additional sessions judge considered all relevant matters and granted the leave sought for. The impugned order is not vitiated by any illegality, material irregularity or error of jurisdiction warranting interference in revision. The revision is liable to be dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the revision. 7. Dismissed. No costs. Sd/- A.M.BABU Judge Mrcs/18.10.