O.P.(C) No. 1041 of 2018: Ouseph Cheriyan and others v. ST George Orthodox Syrian Church, Mannathur and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH** **FRIDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 16TH BHADRA, 1940** **OP(C).No. 1041 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.A.NO.1335/2015 AND E.A.NO.1337/2015 IN E.P.NO.1089/2014 IN OS 41/2013 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 OUSEPH CHERIYAN S/O. OUSEPH, AGED 56,CHOORACKAL HOUSE, MANNATHOOR P.O,THIRUMARADY VILLAGE, PIN-686 723,PAMPAKUDA VIA ERNAKULAM DIST.** **2 BINU THOMAS S/O. THOMAS, AGED 25,MEENKUZHICKAL HOUSE, MANNATHOOR P.O,THIRUMARADY VILLAGE,PIN -686 723,PAMPAKUDA VIA ERNAKULAM DIST.** - **3 DEACON GEE VARGHESE KOCHUPARAMBIL, S/O. K.M ALIAS, AGED 32, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,MANNATHOOR P.O, PAMPAKUDA VIA, EERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI. S. SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI. P. MARTIN JOSE SRI. P. PRIJITH SRI. THOMAS P.KURUVILLA** O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 2 **RESPONDENTS & JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1, 2, 5, 7 TO 19 AND 21 TO** - **30:** - **1 ST GEORGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, MANNATHUR MANNATHUR P.O, THIRUMARADI VILLAGE, PIN-686 723,REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE** - **2 FR. ELIAS JOHN** - **S/O. FR. M.C JOHN, VICAR, ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, MANNATHUR,MANNATHUR P.O, THIRUMARADI VILLAGE, PIN-686 723.RESIDING AT** - **MANNATHIKULAM, ONAKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.** - **3 V.M KURIAKOSE AGED 48,S/O. MANI, VANAPPURATH HOUSE,MANNATHUR P.O, PIN 686 723.** - **4 T.P JOHN AGED 65,S/O. K.V PAILY, KIZHAKKUMCHERIL,MANNATHUR P.O, PIN-686 723.** **5 SKARIA PAILY AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. PAILY, KUNNUMMEL, MANNATHUR P.O, PIN-686 723.** - **6 MATHAI T.V AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, THOLANIKUNNEL,MANNATHUR P.O, PIN-686 723.** - **7 GEORGE PETER, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. PETER KOCHUPARAMBIL MANNATHUR P.O, PIN-686 723.** - **8 V.M JOHN AGED 58,S/O. MANI, VANAPPURATHU, MANNATHUR P.O,PIN-686 723.** **9 SIMON AGED 58, S/O. MATHEW, MOOMUGALIL, MANNATHUR P.O,PIN-686 723.** - 10 **SHIBU KURIAN AGED 42 YEARS S/O. KURIAN, VADACKEL,OLIAPPURAM P.O, PIN-686 662. (DELETED)** O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 3 - **11 JOSE K. PRASAD AGED 55, S/O. JOSEPH, KOCHUPARAMBIL,MANNATHUR P.O, PIN-686 723.** - **12 BABU ABRAHAM AGED 55, S/O. ABRAHAM, KANNAMTHORATHU, MANNATHUR P.O,PIN- 686 723.** - **13 BABU ABRAHAM AGED 65, S/O. ABRAHAM, MADUTHIKUDIYIL, MANNATHUR P.O,PIN- 686 723.** - **14 BENNY PAILY AGED 40, S/O. PAILY, NEDUMTHADADHIL, MANNATHUR P.O, PIN-686 723.** - **15 K.C THANKACHAN AGED 52, S/O. CHACKO, MARATHANAKUNNEL,MANNATHUR P.O, PIN-686 723.** - **16 PHILIP SKARIA AGED 45, S/O. SKARIA, VAZHAKKULAYIL,MANNATHUR P.O, PIN- 686 723.** - **17 JOBY VARGHESE AGED 34,S/O. VARKEY,PUTHENPURACKAL, MANNATHUR P.O,PIN-686 723** - **18 JOHNSON JOSEPH AGED 42, S/O. JOSEPH, CHERAKKALAKUDIYIL, MANNATHUR P.O,PIN-686 723** - **19 BINU KURIAKOSE AGED 36, S/O. KURIAKOSE, ARITHADATHIL,MANNATHUR P.O, PIN-686 723.** - **20 SUNIL V.J AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. JOHN, VATTAPARAMBIL, MANNATHUR P.O,PIN-686 723.** - **21 K.M MATHAI** **AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.** **MATHAI,KUDAPPILLIL,MANNATHUR P.O, PIN-686 723.** O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 4 - **22 JINTO KURIAN** **AGED 31, S/O. KURIAN, MALAKUDIYIL,MANNATHUR P.O, PIN-686 723.** - **23 K.C ALIAS** - **AGED 57,S/O. CHACKO, MARUTHANAKUNNEL,MANNATHUR P.O, PIN-686 723.** - **24 K.M JOSEPH** - **AGED 73 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, RESIDING AT 'NIRMAL BHAVAN, MANNATHOOR P.O & KARA,THIRUMARADY VILLAGE,MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 723.** - **25 POLY ISSAC AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. ISSAC, CHEMMANKUZHIYIL HOUSE,OLIYAPURAM P.O, THIRUMARADY, PIN-686 662.** - **26 JINTO SCARIA AGED 35 YEARS** - **S/O. SCARIA,VADAKKEL HOUSE,OLIYAPURAM P.O, THIRUMARADY,PIN-686 662(DELETED)** - **27** **THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA- 686 661** **(RESPONDENT NOS.10 AND 26 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER ORDER DATED 07.06.2018 IN IA 905/2018.)** **BY ADVS. SRI. K.A. ANISH SRI.ABE RAJAN SRI.P.V.ELIAS GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.I.JOHNSON** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 5 ## **JUDGMENT** The case of the petitioners is that the decree in O.S.No.41/2003 on the files of of the 1[st] Addl. District court, Ernakulam has now become final by the judgment of the Apex Court in **Varghese v. St.Peter's & ' Paul s Syrian Orthodox Church** [2017 (3) KLT 261(SC)]. The decree relates to the administration of St.George Orthodox Syrian Church. Exts.P8 and P9 are filed before the First Addl. District Court, Ernakulam in the pending E.P.No. 1089/2014 in O.S.No.41/2003. Ext.P8 is a petition praying for a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha to hand over the keys of St.George Orthodox Syrian Church, Mannathoor, St.George Chapel, Aroor and St.Mary's Chapel, Athanikkal to the petitioners or to the vicar of the Church. Ext.P9 is a petition praying for a direction to the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural and Circle Inspector of Police, Piravom Police station to render necessary assistance to the petitioners or in short police protection. Both the petitions were ## O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 6 dismissed by Ext.P14 order. The challenge is against the said order. 2. When the original petition came up for hearing, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that even though the Honourable Apex court finally decided the matter as back as on 3.7.2017 and almost one year is over, so far the possession of the church and chapels were not handed over to the petitioners by the Revenue Divisional officer, who took the keys of the above said buildings in a proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the civil court finally decided the matter and found in favour of the petitioners. But that aspect was not considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as by the executing court in its right perspective. Hence, filed this petition. 3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that no illegality committed by the court below in declining the prayer. No relief can be granted in an execution petition beyond the decree ## O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 7 sought to be executed. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the prayers sought in Exts.P8 and P9 are not the reliefs prayed for in the execution petition. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that this being an original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, this court can only look whether the order passed by the court below is perverse and an interference under the supervisory jurisdiction is warranted. The senior counsel also invited the attention of this court to Ext.P7, which is an order in I.A.No.1139/2015 in Cross Objection No.101/2014 in R.F.A.No.320/204 dated 3.8.2015. That was also filed by the petitioners herein for a direction to hand over the keys of the first defendant church and the chapel attached to the same to the petitioners or to the vicar of the first defendant church. After considering the application and arguments, it was held by this court that “ in so far as the appeal is disposed of finally, it is for the petitioners to move the execution court for giving effect to the decree obtained by them in the suit. As O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 8 such, without prejudice to the said right of the petitioners, the above application is dismissed”. Thus, it is submitted before this court that when it was held by this court that for giving effect to the decree obtained by the petitioners in a suit can be only considered by the executing court. 4. The facts in a nutshell is as follows : Two factions were fighting for the control of St.George Orthodox Syrian Church, Mannathur and two other chapels situated at Aroor. The police reported the same before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha. By usurping the power vested under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C., police was directed to take over the above referred church and chapels. Challenging the said order and for a final disposal of the the proceedings initiated under Section 145 (1) of Cr.P.C, a writ petition was filed before this court as W.P.C(C) 15129/2012. Therein this court directed the parties to seek appropriate reliefs from the competent civil court. As already mentioned, the petitioners herein got a favourable decree in O.S.No.41/2003 on the files O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 9 of the First Addl. District Court, Ernakulam. Appeal was also decided in favour of the petitioners. As already mentioned, I.A.No.1139/2015 in Cross Objection No. 101/2014 in R.F.A. No.320/2014 was filed by the petitioners herein, the same was disposed of by this court with a direction to move the execution court for giving effect to the decree obtained. It is relevant to note that the said I.A. was filed after the disposal of the R.F.A. Now, the situation is different. Thereafter, it can be seen that the matter was taken before the Apex Court by the respondents and it was also held in favourable to the petitioners by a common judgment. The dispute was finally decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 5. Now, the decree passed by the trial court is as follows: “ The suit is partly decreed without costs. 2[nd] defendant is directed to convene general body of the 1[st] defendant-Church in order to elect managing committee members including O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 10 secretary and trustees in accordance with 1934 constitution. The defendants 4 and 5 can continue till new persons are elected. It is declared that only 2[nd] defendant or any other vicar or priest appointed in accordance with 1934 constitution of Malankara church has right to conduct holy mass and other religious functions in the 1[st] defendantchurch. The other defendants are restrained by permanent prohibitory injunction from bringing any other vicar or priest to 1[st] defendant-church for conducting holy mass or other religious functions. The other prayers are disallowed.” 6. While executing the above referred decree, on an application as highlighted earlier, the impugned order was passed. Now, on going through the above referred facts, it can be seen that the decree in O.S.No.41/2003 on the files of the First Addl. District Court, Ernakulam became final by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court. While disposing of the matter finally by the Honourable Apex court in **Varghese v. St.Peter's & Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church [ 2017(3)** O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 11 **KLT SC (261)]** , in paragraph 184 it was held as follows: “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 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 O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 12 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. - (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 O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 13 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 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 O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 14 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 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 spiritualsupremacy 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 O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 15 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. It is not open to the Parish Churches to even frame bye-laws 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 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 O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 16 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 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 17 O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 and order situations leading to even closure of the Churches can be accepted.” 7. Reiterating the above stand, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6263/2001 & 6265/2001 held as follows : “We endorse the above view taken in K.S.Varghese Case that the 1934 Constitution cannot be said to be in violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.” 8. Thus, it can be seen that the Hon'ble Apex court finally decided the matter and reiterated the finding in the subsequent decision also. 9. Now, let us examine the reason for Ext.P5 order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The said order reads as follows: “ Whereas, it has been made to appear to me from the report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Koothattukulam countersigned by the Circle Inspector of Police,Piravom and Dy.SP.Muvattupuzha that there exists a tense situation pertaining to the factional dispute between the Orthodox O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 ## 18 and Patriarch factions in the St.George's Church, Mannathoor, which leads to serious law and order problems.” In the circumstances, I, Moniyamma, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha do hereby direct the Circle Inspector of Police, Piravom to take over the St.George's Church, Mannathoor and its Chapel situated at Aarroor, u/s 145(1) Cr.P.C. until further orders.” 10. Thus, the ground on which possession was taken by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was the factional fight. The factional fight was for the control of the church and chapels, of which possession was taken by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. In respect of the said chapel, O.S.No.41/2003 was filed. As rightly pointed by the learned senior counsel for the respondents, this court, as per order in Ext.P7 considered the matter and as the appeal was disposed of finally, the petitioners were directed to move the execution court for giving effect to the decree obtained by them in the suit. But as per the decree, it can be seen that second defendant ## O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 19 is directed to convene general body of the first defendant church in order to elect managing committee members including secretary and trustees in accordance with 1934 constitution. It is further declared that only second defendant or any other vicar or priest appointed in accordance with Malankara Church has the right to conduct holly mass and other religious functions of the first defendant church. It is also relevant to note that as per Ext.P14 which is under challenge in this original petition, the executing court on the application found in paragraph 12 as follows : “ At the same time, the prayer to handover the the key to the 2[nd] judgment debtor vicar is maintainable as the same is in accordance with the decree passed in the above suit.” But the court found that however such a relief can be claimed only in an a execution petition filed under Order 45 Rule 15 of C.P.C which is not done by the decree holder so far. Thereon the said petition was dismissed. The said finding of fact is not challenged by the respondents herein. The said O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 20 findings is in tune with the decree as well as the reported decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Varghese's case (supra). 11. It can be seen that the civil dispute is finally decided by the Apex Court. It is the finding of the civil court that second defendant in the suit who is the vicar or priest appointed in accordance with Malankara Church has the right to conduct holly mass and other religious functions of the first defendant church. It is actually a finding regarding the civil rights of the second vicar. The corollary is that he can conduct the holly mass and other religious function in the first defendant church. It can be done only on getting the entry to the church buildings. It is to be remembered that now the possession had been taken over by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha. It is relevant to consider Article 144 of the Constitution. As per Article 144 of the Constitution, all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. When the judgment of the I Additional District Court, Ernakulam O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 21 is finally upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the decision is reported as stated above, there is a duty on this court to see that the spirit of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is implemented. It is to be remembered that 27[th] respondent herein is none other than the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha. Thus, it is ordered hereby that Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha. shall hand over the possession/key of the first respondent church and chapels referred above to the second respondent vicar or any other vicar or priest appointed in accordance with 1934 constitution of Malankara church, who got right to conduct holly mass and other religious functions of the first respondent church in accordance with the final judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In respect of the police protection, it is made clear that it is the bounden duty of the Revenue Divisional officer as well as the police officials to see that the second respondent vicar takes possession without any obstruction or hindrance from the contesting faction. It is further made clear that if the petitioners are O.P.(C)No.1041/2018 22 under the apprehension that even after the judgment of the Honourable Apex court, there will be breach of peace, they are at liberty to move for police protection. The original petition is disposed of as stated above. **Sd/-** ## **K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH** SV **JUDGE**