H.G. Yuhanon Mar Polycarpos Metropolitan (Diocese Metropolitan, Diocese of Angamaly, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church) v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Revenue Divisional Office, Muvattupuzha; Village Officer, Pothanicadu, Kothamangalam Taluk; Addl.R3 Saji Abraham; Addl.R4 Thomas Isaac

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 13TH POUSHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 30474 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **H.G. YUHANON MAR POLICARPOS METROPOLITAN AGED 63 YEARS DIOCESE, METROPOLITAN, DIOCESE OF ANGAMALY, THRIKUNNATH SEMINARY, PB NO 61, ALUVA-683101** **BY ADVS. SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686661** - **2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, POTHANICADU, VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, PIN-686691** - **3 ADDL.R3. SAJI ABRAHAM AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM, FLAT NO.4A, KALPAKA FORT PALACE, RAGHAVAM PILLAI ROAD, EDAPPALLY - 682024.** - **4 ADDL.R4. THOMAS ISSAC S/O.ULAHANNAN ISSAC, AGED 56 YEARS, MANGALATH HOUSE, CHATHAMATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DT. - 686671. (ADDL.R3 AND R4 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 25.10.2018 IN IA 1/2018.)** **BY ADVS. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE SMT.A.A.GEETHA SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.10.2018, THE COURT ON 3.1.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J. ----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 30474 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of January, 2019** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the Diocese Metropolitan, Diocese of Angamaly, Malankara Orthodox Church, seeking directions to the respondents to release the attachment over the properties of the St.Peter's and St.Paul's Surian Orthodox Church (popularly known as Karmel Church), Chathamattam to the petitioner who represents the Malankara Orthodox Church as declared by the Supreme Court of India in _**Varghese v. St.Peter's & Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church**_ [2017(3) KLT 261 (SC)] and in Exhibit P9 order. A further prayer to consider Exhibit P11 request made by the petitioner in the light of the judgment in _**Varghese's case (supra)**_ as well as Exhibit P9 is also sought for. 2. Heard Sri.Roshan D Alexander, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.S.Kannan, learned Government Pleader and Sri.Paul K.Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 3 and 4. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the property of the Karmel Church was settled in favour of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church by one Mathai Kathanar on 9.11.1970 by Exhibit P2 document. It is stated that the Church was consecrated in the year 1924 by Mathai Kathanar. By Exhibit P2, 2 acres and 23 cents of property was settled in favour of the Metropolitan of Angamaly Diocese of 3 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and the same was dedicated for the welfare and well being of the Parishioners of the said Church. It is contended that the Apex Court has clearly given a quietus to the factional dispute within the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church by holding that the 1934 Constitution fully governs the affairs of the Parish Churches under the Malankara Church and that the decree in _**Most Rev P.M.A.Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma**_ [(1995) Suppl (4) SCC 286] is binding not only on the parties in that suit but on those who have interest in the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and that the findings in the earlier representative suit, i.e., Samudayam suit are also binding on Parish Churches/Parishioners, to the extent issues have been decided. It is further held that the Malankara Church is Episcopal to the extent as provided in the 1934 Constitution, and the right is possessed by the Diocese to settle all internal matters and elect their own Bishops in terms of the said Constitution. It is stated that in view of the clear findings rendered by the Apex Court as enumerated therein, there can be no further dispute as to the right of the petitioner to care, own, possess and administer the property of the Church and that the possession of the property is liable to be released to the petitioner forthwith. 4. It is submitted that in 1974, some members of the Patriarch faction had obstructed the Vicar appointed by the petitioner from continuing with the election process under the 1934 Constitution and a 4 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ petition had been filed by Fr.Danial John and another before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha. The Sub Inspector of Police, Pothanicad filed a report dated 28.1.1975 seeking invocation of Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C and the 1[st] respondent issued an order appointing the 2[nd] respondent as the receiver for the management of the properties by Exhibit P3 dated 13.2.1975. It is stated that by order in M.C.No.6 of 1975 dated 5.6.1997, the possession of the property was restored to the representatives of both factions, the trustees and possession was handed over on 20.6.1997. This order was challenged before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl.R.P.No.26 of 1997. By Exhibit P4 order dated 25.7.1997, the order of the 1[st] respondent was set aside and the official receiver took over possession of the properties from the trustees on 29.7.1997. Exhibit P4 order was challenged by the Orthodox faction filing Crl.M.C.No.2596 of 1997 and the matter was remanded back the 1[st] respondent. Thereafter, by Exhibit P5 order dated 18.12.1997, the 1[st] respondent directed that the property shall remain in the custody of the receiver until the claim is decided by a competent civil court. Though Exhibit P5 was taken up before the Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam and later in Crl.M.C before this Court, the same was upheld. 5. Thereafter, pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court in _**Most Rev P.M.A.Metropolitan's case (supra),**_ an election to the Malankara Association was held at Parumala on 20.3.2002, which was 5 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ later upheld by the Apex Court. It is stated that a new denomination called “Jacobite Syrian Christian Association” was formed and a 2002 Constitution was adopted by the members of the erstwhile Patriarch faction. It is stated that a suit was filed by certain Parishioners of the Patriarch faction as O.S.No.110 of 2005 before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha after obtaining leave of the Court under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was transferred to the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam and renumbered as O.S.No.12 of 2008, but the same was withdrawn by the plaintiffs. It is stated that O.P.Nos.438 of 2012 and 647 of 2013 filed before the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam were not entertained by the Court and stand dismissed. It is stated that both the factions had constructed separate Churches and are conducting religious services there. The Church buildings situated in the property covered by Exhibit P2 have been completely damaged and destroyed due to lack of care. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the findings of the Apex Court in _**Varghese's case (supra)**_ , the property which had been settled on the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is liable to be handed over to the petitioner, who is the Metropolitan of Angamaly Diocese without any further delay. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1[st] respondent admitting that the Karmel Church is a constituent Parish Church of the Malankara Sabha falling under the Angamaly Diocese 6 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ situated at Pothanikkad Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk. It is stated that the Church was taken into possession by the 1[st] respondent under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C and the 2[nd] respondent was appointed as official receiver. It is further stated that there are serious disputes between the Parishioners of the Karmel Church and serious law and order situation had resulted in the closure of the Church and taking over of the property by the official receiver. It is stated that till the dispute between the factions is finally decided by a competent civil court, the property is to remain in the custody of the receiver. It is stated that the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothanicad had submitted a report dated 10.11.2016 stating that any attempt to open the Church for worship by any one of the factions will again lead to factional disputes and serious breach of peace and law and order situation in the area. The 2[nd] respondent had also submitted Exhibit R1(c) report that both factions had built separate Chapels which are being used peacefully. It is stated that the cemetry situated in the disputed property is used by both parties and Parishioners belonging to Orthodox faction consist of about 50 families while those belonging to the Patriarch faction consist of about 150 families. It is further stated in the counter affidavit at paragraph 17 as follows: _“17. On receipt of Exhibit R1(b) and R1(c) reports, the 1[st] respondent issued notice to the parties concerned in MC.No.06/1975 to appear for hearing on 10.2.2017. Both parties appeared through their counsels, filed vakalath and_ 7 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ _requested time to submit relevant documents. An application for impleadment as additional respondents in MC.No.6/1975 was also filed by the B party on 10.2.2017. The A party (petitioners in O.P.(Crl)No.564 of 2016) filed objection on 28.2.2017 against the petition for impleadment. The case was again posted to 1.3.2017 and both parties appeared on 1.3.2017 and copy of the objection filed by the A party was given to the B party and case was again posted to 12.4.2017, for further enquiry. Both parties appeared on 12.4.2017. A party produced a copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 29.1.2017 which relates mainly to the agreement signed by elected members of both factions on 20.12.2015, for amicable settlement of the dispute through the District Legal Service Authority, Ernakulam which was failed by the objections raised. In the minutes, it is also stated that the church is in the form of a public trust and the 1934 constitution and the law did not permit to divide its property and hence passed a resolution to cancel the decision taken in the meeting held on 17.5.2015 to divide property of the church. The B party produced a copy of the order dated 18.12.1997 and order of the First additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam dated 8.1.2001 in Crl.R.P.No.3/1998. The B party also produced a copy of O.P.No.1111/2016 filed before the District Court, Ernakulam praying for a decree declaring that the agreement signed between the elected members of orthodox and patriarch faction on 20.12.2015 for an amicable settlement of the dispute is legal and valid and the same is binding on the entire parishioners. After considering the above facts, the case has been further posted to 20.9.2017 for final hearing and orders. Therefore the proceedings initiated by the 1[st] respondent pursuant to the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court are underway and has not arrived at its logical conclusion.”_ It is stated that pursuant to Exhibit P11 representation submitted by 8 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ the petitioner relying on the decision of the Apex Court in _**Varghese's case (supra),**_ a notice dated 4.10.2018 had been issued to the petitioner to appear before the 1[st] respondent to consider the contentions raised in Exhibit P11. It is stated that appropriate steps will be taken, taking note of Exhibits P9 and P10 judgments as well. 7. Three of the Parishioners of the Church had preferred an impleading petition in this writ petition contending that the Parishioners of the Church had entered into Annexure-III compromise agreement on 20.12.2015, but the same could not be implemented due to objections created by outsiders. It is stated that O.P.No.1111 of 2015 has been filed before the District Court (Church Court), Ernakulam seeking implementation of the said compromise and the said suit is still pending. It is stated that the Apex Court in Malankara Sabha case held that the Church and properties belong to the Parishioners and that they have absolute right and liberty to deal with the said properties. It is stated that the petitioner has no right over the physical management and administration of the Church, since the properties of the Church vests with it's Parishioners and since the civil suit with regard to the claim of the Parishioners is pending, the prayers sought for in the writ petition cannot be allowed. It is stated that the decision reported in _**Varghese's case (supra)**_ is rendered in civil appeals from regular second appeals decided by this Court in exercise of it's appellate power in respect of three specific Churches, i.e., 9 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ Kolenchery Church, Varikkoli Church and Mannathoor Church. It is stated that the issue of right of ownership of the Church in question in the instant case can be decided only in a properly constituted proceedings before a competent civil court and the entire process cannot be short circuited by a writ petition before this Court. It is stated that the respective rights of the parties can be decided only in a properly constituted civil suit with the representatives of the Parishioners on the party array. 8. A reply affidavit has been preferred by the petitioner against the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 contending that the law has been declared by the Supreme Court and the clarification issued that the directions are to apply _in rem_ to all the constituent Churches under the Malankara Sabha. The respondents are duty bound to implement such directions and cannot use the excuse of breach of peace to avoid taking appropriate action on Exhibit P11 representation. It is stated that the property of the Church having been specifically settled on the Metropolitan of Angamaly Diocese for and on behalf of the Malankara Church, the compromise entered into between the Parishioners of the Church would have no effect on the rights to the property which stands settled by the judgment of the Apex Court. It is stated that the compromise settlement referred to is barred by Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, since there can be no agreement in respect of a property to which the Parishioners 10 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ have no right. 9. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. The Apex Court in _**Varghese's case (supra)**_ arrived at 28 conclusions based on it's findings. The conclusions recorded in paragraph 184 of the said judgment are as noted below: _“184. Resultantly, based on the aforesaid findings in the judgment, our main conclusions, inter alia, are as follows :_ _(i) Malankara Church is Episcopal in character to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 Constitution. The 1934 Constitution fully governs the affairs of the Parish Churches and shall prevail._ _(ii) The decree in the 1995 judgment is completely in tune with the judgment. There is no conflict between the judgment and the decree._ _(iii) The 1995 judgment arising out of the representative suit is binding and operates as res judicata with respect to the matters it has decided, in the wake of provisions of Order I Rule 8 and Explanation 6 to S.11 CPC. The same binds not only the parties named in the suit but all those who have interest in the Malankara Church. Findings in earlier representative suit, i.e., Samudayam suit are also binding on Parish Churches/Parishioners to the extent issues have been decided._ _(iv) As the 1934 Constitution is valid and binding upon the Parish Churches, it is not open to any individual Church, to decide to have their new Constitution like that of 2002 in the so-called exercise of right under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. It is also not permissible to create a parallel system of management in the churches under the guise of spiritual_ 11 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ _supremacy of the Patriarch._ _(v) The Primate of Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is Catholicos. He enjoys spiritual powers as well, as the Malankara Metropolitan. Malankara Metropolitan has the prime jurisdiction regarding temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administration of Malankara Church subject to the riders provided in the 1934 Constitution._ _(vi) Full effect has to be given to the finding that the spiritual power of the Patriarch has reached to a vanishing point. Consequently, he cannot interfere in the governance of Parish Churches by appointing Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests) etc. and thereby cannot create a parallel system of administration. The appointment has to be made as per the power conferred under the 1934 Constitution on the concerned Diocese, Metropolitan etc._ _(vii) Though it is open to the individual member to leave a Church in exercise of the right not to be a member of any Association and as per Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Parish Assembly of the Church by majority or otherwise cannot decide to move church out of the Malankara Church. Once a trust, is always a trust._ _(viii) When the Church has been created and is for the benefit of the beneficiaries, it is not open for the beneficiaries, even by a majority, to usurp its property or management. The Malankara Church is in the form of a trust in which, its properties have vested. As per the 1934 Constitution, the Parishioners though may individually leave the Church, they are not permitted to take the movable or immovable properties out of the ambit of 1934 Constitution without the approval of the Church hierarchy._ 12 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ _(ix) The spiritual power of Patriarch has been set up by the appellants clearly in order to violate the mandate of the 1995 judgment of this Court which is binding on the Patriarch, Catholicos and all concerned._ _(x) As per the historical background and the practices which have been noted, the Patriarch is not to exercise the power to appoint Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates etc. Such powers are reserved to other authorities in the Church hierarchy. The Patriarch, thus, cannot be permitted to exercise the power in violation of the 1934 Constitution to create a parallel system of administration of Churches as done in 2002 and onwards._ _(xi) This Court has held in 1995 that the unilateral exercise of such power by the Patriarch was illegal. The said decision has also been violated. It was only in the alternative this Court held in the 1995 judgment that even if he has such power, he could not have exercised the same unilaterally which we have explained in this judgment._ _(xii) It is open to the Parishioners to believe in the spiritual supremacy of Patriarch or apostolic succession but it cannot be used to appoint Vicars, Priests, Deacons, Prelates etc., in contravention of the 1934 Constitution._ _(xiii) Malankara Church is Episcopal to the extent as provided in the 1934 Constitution, and the right is possessed by the Diocese to settle all internal matters and elect their own Bishops in terms of the said Constitution._ _(xiv) Appointment of Vicar is a secular matter. There is no violation of any of the rights encompassed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, if the appointment of Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests) etc., is made as per the 1934 Constitution. The Patriarch has no power to interfere in such matters under the guise of spiritual supremacy unless the 1934_ 13 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ _Constitution is amended in accordance with law. The same is binding on all concerned._ _(xv) Udampadis do not provide for appointment of Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates etc. Even otherwise once the 1934 Constitution has been adopted, the appointment of Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (high priests) etc., is to be as per the 1934 Constitution. It is not within the domain of the spiritual right of the Patriarch to appoint Vicar, Priests etc. The spiritual power also vests in the other functionaries of Malankara Church._ _(xvi) The functioning of the Church is based upon the division of responsibilities at various levels and cannot be usurped by a single individual howsoever high he may be. The division of powers under the 1934 Constitution is for the purpose of effective management of the Church and does not militate against the basic character of the church being Episcopal in nature as mandated thereby. The 1934 Constitution cannot be construed to be opposed to the concept of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch. It cannot as well, be said to be an instrument of injustice or vehicle of oppression on the Parishioners who believe in the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch._ _(xvii) The Church and the Cemetry cannot be confiscated by anybody. It has to remain with the Parishioners as per the customary rights and nobody can be deprived of the right to enjoy the same as a Parishioner in the Church or to be buried honourably in the cemetery, in case he continues to have faith in the Malankara Church. The property of the Malankara Church in which is also vested the property of the Parish Churches, would remain in trust as it has for the time immemorial for the sake of the beneficiaries and no one can claim to be owners thereof even by majority and usurp the Church and the properties._ _(xviii) The faith of Church is unnecessarily sought to be divided vis-a-vis the office of Catholicos and the Patriarch as the_ 14 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ _common faith of the Church is in Jesus Christ. In fact an effort is being made to take over the management and other powers by raising such disputes as to supremacy of Patriarch or Catholicos to gain control of temporal matters under the garb of spirituality. There is no good or genuine cause for disputes which have been raised._ _(xix) The authority of Patriarch had never extended to the government of temporalities of the Churches. By questioning the action of the Patriarch and his undue interference in the administration of Churches in violation of the 1995 judgment, it cannot be said that the Catholicos faction is guilty of repudiating the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch. The Patriarch faction is to be blamed for the situation which has been created post 1995 judgment. The property of the Church is to be managed as per the 1934 Constitution. The judgment of 1995 has not been respected by the Patriarch faction which was binding on all concerned. Filing of Writ Petitions in the High Court by the Catholicos faction was to deter the Patriarch/his representatives to appoint the Vicar etc., in violation of the 1995 judgment of this Court._ _(xx) The 1934 Constitution is enforceable at present and the plea of its frustration or breach is not available to the Patriarch faction. Once there is Malankara Church, it has to remain as such including the property. No group or denomination by majority or otherwise can take away the management or the property as that would virtually tantamount to illegal interference in the management and illegal usurpation of its properties. It is not open to the beneficiaries even by majority to change the nature of the Church, its property and management. The only method to change management is to amend the Constitution of 1934 in accordance with law. I It is not open to the Parish Churches to even frame byelaws in violation of the provisions of the 1934 Constitution._ _(xxi) The Udampadies of 1890 and 1913 are with respect to administration of Churches and are not documents of the creation_ 15 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ _of the Trust and are not of utility at present and even otherwise cannot hold the field containing provisions inconsistent with the 1934 Constitution, as per S.132 thereof. The Udampady also cannot hold the field in view of the authoritative pronouncements made by this Court in the earlier judgments as to the binding nature of the 1934 Constitution._ _(xxii) The 1934 Constitution does not create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or future any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent in the Malankara Church properties and only provides a system of administration and as such is not required to be registered. In any case, the Udampadis for the reasons already cited, cannot supersede the 1934 Constitution only because these are claimed to be registered._ _(xxiii) In otherwise Episcopal church, whatever autonomy is provided in the Constitution for the Churches is for management and necessary expenditure as provided in S.22 etc._ _(xxiv) The formation of 2002 Constitution is the result of illegal and void exercise. It cannot be recognized and the parallel system created thereunder for administration of Parish Churches of Malankara Church cannot hold the field. It has to be administered under the 1934 Constitution._ _(xxv) It was not necessary, after amendment of the plaint in Mannathur Church matter, to adopt the procedure once again of representative suit under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. It remained a representative suit and proper procedure has been followed. It was not necessary to obtain fresh leave._ _(xxvi) The 1934 Constitution is appropriate and adequate for management of the Parish Churches, as such there is no necessity of framing a scheme under S.92 of the C.P.C._ _(xxvii) The plea that in face of the prevailing dissension between the two factions and the remote possibility of reconciliation, the religious services may be permitted to be conducted by two Vicars of each faith cannot be accepted as that_ 16 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ _would amount to patronizing parallel systems of administration._ _(xxviii) Both the factions, for the sake of the sacred religion they profess and to preempt further bickering and unpleasantness precipitating avoidable institutional degeneration, ought to resolve their differences if any, on a common platform if necessary by amending the Constitution further in accordance with law, but by no means, any attempt to create parallel systems of administration of the same Churches resulting in law and order situations leading to even closure of the Churches can be accepted.”_ 10. By Exhibit P9, SLP.No.33156-33159 of 2014 pertaining to another constituent Church (Piravom Church) of the Malankara Orthodox Church was disposed of stating as follows: ## _“Leave granted._ _As the controversy in question has been finally decided in the case of K.S.Verghese v. St.Peter's & Paul's Syrian Orth. & Ors. In C.A.No.3674 of 2015 etc. decided on 3[rd] July, 2017 (2017(15) SCC 333], in which it has been laid down that 1934 Constitution holds the field, nothing further survives in the matters for adjudication. Consequently, the appeals stand disposed of in terms of the above judgment._ _Let all the concerned courts and authorities act in terms of the judgment. Let there be no multiplicity of the litigation on this aspect any more in the various courts. The decision rendered in representative suit is binding on all.”_ 11. Thereafter, by Exhibit P10 judgment dated 28.8.2018, a three judge bench of the Apex Court endorsed to the view taken in _**Varghese's case (supra)**_ and held that the Metropolitan, to whom the property and the Church stood settled, has the authority to appoint 17 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ ## Vicars and Priests to the constituent Churches in question. 12. The contention of the respondents to the effect that the issue of ownership to the Church has to await a decree by a competent civil court does not appear to be borne out by the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The Apex Court has clearly indicated the manner in which the 1934 Constitution has been interpreted and has held that the findings in the judgment are applicable to be constituent Churches and Parishioners as well. This aspect is apparent from Exhibits P9 and P10 judgments as well. It has been held that the findings of the 1995 judgment are also findings _in rem_ effecting the constituent Churches under the Malankara Church, a list of which has been produced as Exhibit P8. The rights of the Parishioners, majority or otherwise, has also been referred to and declared in the judgment. In the above view of the matter, the contention that the said judgments governs only the three Churches made mention of therein cannot be accepted by this Court. 13. True, this Court is not considering a civil suit with regard to right to the property of the specific Church in question with the Parishioners on the party array. What is under consideration is only a writ petition seeking directions to consider Exhibit P11 and to hand over the possession of the property of the Church in question in the light of the findings of the Apex Court. I am of the considered opinion that the contention that the issue has to await a decision in the civil 18 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ suit filed to implement a settlement between the Parishioners is completely unsustainable. The findings of the Apex Court in _**Varghese's case (supra)**_ are binding on this Court as well as on respondents 1 and 2 in terms of Article 146 of the Constitution of India. 14. In the above view of the matter, this Court cannot relegate the parties to a further civil suit in respect of the matters which stand settled by the decision of the Apex Court. The official respondents also cannot plead ignorance of the findings of the Apex Court and seek any leeway in the implementation thereof. However, since Exhibit P11 request has been made before the 1[st] respondent and since it appears that the 1[st] respondent is taking anxious efforts to see that the judgment of the Apex Court is implemented, I am of the opinion that further steps are liable to be taken by the 1[st] respondent on Exhibit P11 in accordance with law. Suffice it to say, the judgment of the Apex Court is also law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, and respondents 1 and 2 are bound to implement the directions contained in the said judgment without fail. Appropriate steps as directed above shall be taken by the respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- **ANU SIVARAMAN** _vgs_ 19 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE-I A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OP (CRL.)NO.564/2016 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 21/10/2016.** **ANNEXURE-II A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY SUB INSPECTOR, POTHANICADU TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 10/11/2016. ANNEXURE-III A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN BOTH PARTIES DATED 20/12/2015.** **ANNEXURE-IV A TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO.1111/2016 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT COURT (CHURCH COURT) ERNAKULAM DATED 13/12/2016.** **ANNEXURE-0V A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE REMAINS OF THE CHURCH. EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE KALPANA NO.AD/YMP/60/2016 DATED 10/5/2016** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED BEARING NO.3171/1970 OF KOTHAMANGALAM, SRO, MATHAI KATHANAR DTD. 9/11/1970** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/2/1975 IN MC NO.6/1975 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANALOG WITH TAX RECEIPTS** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/7/1997 IN CRL.RP NO.26/1997 ON THE FILES OF THE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/12/1997 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8/1/2001 IN CRL.RP NO.3/1998 ON THE FILES OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/12/2005 IN CRL.MC. NO.3568/2002 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF THE CHURCHES ATTACHED WITH THE PLAINT IN OS NO.142/1974 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM.** 20 _**WP(C).30474/18**_ **EXHIBIT P9** **TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19/4/2018 IN SLP(C) NO.33156-33159/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA** **EXHIBIT P10** - **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/8/2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6263-6265 OF 2001 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 05/09/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P12** - **TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE OBJECTORS. ADDL. EXT. P12. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04/10/2018 BEARING NO.A605391/2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF LOK ADALAT IN PLP NO.51565/2015 SETTLED ON 08/09/2016.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PARISH COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 29/01/2017.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PARISHIONERS EXTRACTED FROM THE PARISH REGISTER.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1 A** A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/10/2016 IN OP (CRL.) NO.564/2016. **EXHIBIT R1 B** A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHANICADU DATED 10/11/2016. **EXHIBIT R1 C** A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. **EXHIBIT R1 D** A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.