High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-10-23Dismissed

FAO No.135 of 2018 (In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam)

Case / Petition Number:FAO.No.135 OF 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.M.BABU
Judgment Date: 2019-10-23
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed; no costs. The High Court held that the 1934 constitution governs parish churches and binds the church authorities, with the Supreme Court line of decisions (including K.S. Varghese, Baby C.J., and Fr Isaac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa) applicable and binding. The injunction order's rationale stands, and there can be no further adjudication following the apex court’s directives.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

C.V.KURIAKOSE

Respondents

C.C.Joseph
Johny V.P
P.M Varghese
C.K George
St. George Orthodox Syrian Church Chelakkara (represented by Trustee K.C Joy)
K.C Joy
Rev. Fr. Isaac K.P
Rev. Fr. Thomas Nediyapalkkal
Johnson
K.I Joy

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR COUNSEL
• SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
• SMT.LINTA VARGHESE

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL
• SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal arises from a civil suit concerning the ownership, possession, administration and management of the St. George Orthodox Syrian Church at Chelakkara, Thrissur, and related parish institutions. The parties are split between two factions of the Malankara Jacobite Orthodox Church—the Catholicos (Petitioners) and the Patriarch faction (the 5th respondent, C.V. KuriaKose, appellant). The court examines whether the first respondent church is a constituent of the Malankara Church and therefore governed by the 1934 constitution of the Malankara Church. An order of temporary injunction by the I Addl. District Court restrained those not appointed under the 1934 constitution from conducting religious services at the first respondent church, and prohibited obstruction of the third respondent or other trustees appointed under the 1934 constitution, burial in the church cemetery, and collection of burial fees until disposal of the suit. The judgment recounts Supreme Court precedents—K.S. Varghese v. St. Peter’s Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church; Baby C.J. v. Fr Jiju Varghese; and Fr Isaac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa v. St Mary’s Orthodox Church—emphasizing the central role of the 1934 constitution, its episcopal character, and its binding effect on parish churches. The court reiterates that subsequent Supreme Court pronouncements in these matters bind Kerala courts to follow K.S. Varghese, concluding that nothing further survives for adjudication. The appeal is dismissed with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

1934 constitution of the Malankara Church (Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

The Malankara church is episcopal in character to the extent declared in the 1934 constitution.
The 1934 constitution fully governs the affairs of the parish churches and shall prevail.
It is not open to any individual church to have its own constitution.
It is not permissible to create a parallel system of management in churches under the guise of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch.
When the church has been created for the beneficiaries, it is not open for the beneficiaries, even by a majority, to usurp the property or the management of the church.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Chelakkara church, though within the Malankara fold, is not automatically bound by the 1934 constitution for its own ecclesiastical administration; therefore the temporary injunction restraining non‑1934 constitution holders from conducting services should be set aside. They rely on the broader episcopal framework of the Malankara church and seek to preserve their own administrative arrangements pending the suit, urging that ecclesiastical disputes should be resolved within church law rather than civil process.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that the Chelakkara church is a constituent of the Malankara church and thus subject to the 1934 constitution, which governs parish affairs. They submit that the injunction was properly issued to preserve ecclesiastical order, protect parishioners’ burial rights, and prevent extraction of cemetery fees until disposition of the suit. They emphasize binding authority of K.S. Varghese and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that reinforce the supremacy of the 1934 constitution and discourage parallel secular interventions in church governance.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
K.S. Varghese v. St. Peter’s Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church	(2017) 15 SCC 333	Positive	Affirms the supremacy and applicability of the 1934 constitution over parish churches and governs church management.
Baby C.J. v. Fr Jiju Varghese	(2019) (2) KHC 692	Positive	Affirms that K.S. Varghese holds the field; reinforces the binding framework established therein.
Fr Isaac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa v. St Mary’s Orthodox Syrian Church	Civil Appeal nos 7115 and 7116 of 2019	Positive	Apex Court reiterated adherence to K.S. Varghese and restrained orders contrary to that decision.

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 FAO No.135 of 2018 (In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam) 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** ## **FAO.No.135 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.7.2018 IN IA 5551/2017 IN OS 29/2017 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **th APPELLANT/5 RESPONDENT IN IA 5551 OF 2017/5TH DEFENDANT:** **C.V.KURIAKOSE** **AGED 59, S/O. VARU, CHEMANNOOR HOUSE,CHELAKKARA P.O, THRISSUR.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR COUNSEL SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR SMT.LINTA VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4, 6 AND 7 IN IA 5551 OF 2017/PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4, 6 AND 7:** - **1 C.C.JOSEPH AGED 68, S/O. CHAKKAPPAN, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,ANTHIMAHAKALA KAVU, CHELAKKARA P.O,THRISSUR, PIN 680 586.** - **2 JOHNY V.P AGED 49,S/O. PAULOSE, VADAKKAN HOUSE, VENGANELLOOR P.O,CHELAKKARA , THRISSUR, PIN 680 586.** - **3 P.M VARGHESE, AGED 62, S/O. MANI PALAPPILLY HOUSE,KILIMANGALAM P.O CHELAKKARA , THRISSUR, PIN 680 591.** - **4 C.K GEORGE AGED 65,S/O. KUNJAPPAN, CHUNKATH HOUSE, CHELAKKARA VILLAGE,CEHLAKKARA P.O, PIN 680 586.** **5 ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH CHELAKKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE K.C JOY, AGED 49,S/O. CHUMMAR, KOOTHOOR HOUSE, VENGENELLOOR, CHELAKKARA P.O, THRISSUR, PIN 680 586.** - **6 K.C JOY AGED 49, S/O. CHUMMAR, KOOTHOOT HOUSE,VENGENELLOOR, CEHLAKKARA P.O, THRISSUR,PIN 680 586.** 2 FAO.No.135 OF 2018 - **7 REV.FR. ISSAC K.P,AGED 68, S/O. PAULOSE VICAR, ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH,CHELAKKARA THRISSUR, PIN 680 586.** - **8 REV. FR. THOMAS NEDIYAPALAKKAL AGED 50, S/O. PAULOSE, VAZHANI P.O, VIRIPAKKA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN 680 586.** - **9 JOHNSON** - **AGED 57, S/O. CHERU, CHEERAN HOUSE,THONOOR KARA VILLAGE P.O,THONOORKARA, THRISSUR, PIN 680 586** - **10 K.I JOY AGED 55, S/O. ITTOOPPU, KUNDUKULAM HOUSE, VENGENELLOOR VILLAGE,VENGENELLOOR THRISSUR, PIN 680 586.** - R1 TO **BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL** R4 **BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE,** - “ **THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.9.2019, THE COURT ON 23.10.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 FAO.No.135 OF 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** The appeal is directed against an order of temporary injunction. Parties are referred to in this judgment as they are arrayed in the application for temporary injunction. The 5[th] respondent is the appellant. 2. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows: The petition is allowed. Respondent number 4, or any other trustees, vicars and prelates who are not appointed under the 1934 constitution are restrained by a temporary injunction from conducting any religious services in the first respondent church or its institutions scheduled to the plaint. R4 to R7, their men, agents or anybody claiming under them are also restrained from causing any obstruction to the 3[rd] respondent or other vicars or trustees appointed under the 1934 constitution from conducting religious services in the first respondent church and its institutions. R4 to R7, their men, agents or anybody claiming under them are further restrained from causing any obstruction to the parishioners in burying the dead bodies of their beloved ones in the cemetery attached to R1 church and from collecting any fee for the same, all till the disposal of the suit. Needless to say that after the order passed by this competent civil court, the arrangement for 4 FAO.No.135 OF 2018 worship or any other matter directed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate will not survive any longer. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. 3. Heard Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, the learned senior counsel for the 5[th] respondent/appellant and Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. 4. The first respondent is a church at Chelakkara in Thrissur district. The disputes in the suit are concerning the ownership, possession, administration and management of the said church. The legal fight is between two factions of the Jacobite christians. The two factions are generally called the Patriarch faction and the Catholicos faction. The Catholicos faction owes allegiance to the 1934 constitution of the Malankara church. The Patriarch faction does not approve the said constitution. The petitioners represent the Catholicos faction. The 5[th] respondent and a few other respondents who support the 5[th] respondent belong to the Patriarch faction. According to the petitioners, the first respondent church is a constituent of the Malankara church and therefore it should be governed under the provisions of the 1934 constitution. The 5[th] respondent and the other respondents who support him contend that the first respondent church is not a constituent of the 5 FAO.No.135 OF 2018 Malankara church and therefore the 1934 constitution cannot have any application in the administration and management of the first respondent church. 5. The first respondent church is an ancient church which came into existence over two centuries ago. At that point of time the believers of the Malankara church did not divide into two factions. Therefore the contention of the petitioners that the first respondent is a constituent of the Malankara church is to be accepted, at least prima facie. When that be so, the first respondent should be governed under the 1934 constitution. This is the only possible view which can be taken at the present stage of the suit to decide the application for temporary injunction. The learned additional district judge decided the application and passed an order of temporary injunction in this view of the matter. 6. **K.S.Varghese vs St.Peter's Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church [(2017) 15 SCC 333]** . The Supreme Court holds, inter alia, that (i) the Malankara church is episcopal in character to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 constitution, (ii) the 1934 constitution fully governs the affairs of the parish churches and shall prevail, (iii) therefore it is not open to any individual church to have its own constitution, (iv) it is not permissible to create a parallel system of management in 6 FAO.No.135 OF 2018 churches under the guise of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch and (v) when the church has been created for the beneficiaries, it is not open for the beneficiaries, even by a majority, to usurp the property or the management of the church. The learned additional district judge granted temporary injunction accepting the supremacy of the 1934 constitution and in the light of the decision of the apex court in **K.S Varghese** (supra) and two other decisions. Therefore the appellant/5[th] respondent cannot seek to set aside the order of temporary injunction granted as per the impugned order. 7. The apex court holds in **Baby C.J vs Fr Jiju Varghese (2019 (2) KHC 692)** that **K.S** . **Varghese** (supra) holds the field and that nothing further survives for adjudication. The Supreme Court directed all courts and authorities concerned to act in terms of the judgment in **K.S Varghese** (supra). The position is again reiterated by the Supreme Court in a recent decision which, it seems, not reported yet. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners produced a copy of the said judgment ( **Fr Issac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa vs St Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church** – Civil Appeal nos 7115 and 7116 of 2019). The apex court said: We restrain all the civil courts and the High Court in Kerala not to pass any order in violation of the mandate of this court's decision in **K.S Varghese** (supra). 7 FAO.No.135 OF 2018 There is no scope for further litigation in the matter which we have concluded. We direct the courts to decide all pending matters following the aforesaid decision ( **K.S.Varghese)** which has been affirmed thereafter by umpteen number of times. Let similar matters which are pending be decided following the aforesaid judgment and order. There can be no further litigation as the decision in the representative suit is binding. In view of what the apex court said in **Fr Issac Mattammel** (supra), nothing survives for consideration. Therefore the detailed argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellant/5[th] respondent cannot be gone into. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. ## 8. Dismissed. No costs. **Sd/-** ## **A.M.BABU** Sks/18.10.2019 **JUDGE** 8 FAO.No.135 OF 2018 ## **APPENDIX** ## **ANNEXURES OF APPELLANT** **A1-TRUE COPY OF THE TRUST OP SUBSEQUENTLY NUMBERED AS OS NO.29/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** **A2-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.8.2016 IN IA 1663/2016 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR** **A3-TRUE COPY OF IA NO.5551/2017 IN OS NO.29/2017** **A4-TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN IA 5551/2017.** 9 FAO.No.135 OF 2018