Pavu s/o Varkey; Zacharia Mar Athanios Metropolitan; Very Rev. Mathew Pulimoottil Cor Episcoopa vs St. Ignatius Orthodox (Jacobite) Syrian Church, Kanjiramattom and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 22ND MAGHA, 1941** ## **RFA.No.427 OF 2003** **AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN OS 163/1977 DATED 13-10-2003 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ERNAKULAM UNDER SECTION 96 AND ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE** **APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS 2 & 4:** - **1 PAVU, S/O.VARKEY, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT PUTHUPALLIL HOUSE,VIDANGARA DESOM, AMBALLORE VILLAGE, P.O KANJIRAMATTOM** - **2 ZACHARIA MAR ATHANIOS METROPOLITAN, SION SEMINARY , KORATTY, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.** **3 VERY REV.MATHEW PULIMOOTTIL COR-EPISCOPA, S/O PURAVATH, AGED 88, RESIDING AT PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM PO, PIN – 682 315** **(*ADDL A3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.02.2020 IN IA NO.2451/2015)** **BY ADVS. A1 BY – SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU A2 AND ADDL A3 BY SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA** **RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1,3,4 TO 7,10,11,14,17,18,21,23&24:** - **1 ST.IGNATIUS ORTHODOX (JACOBITE) SYRIAN CHURCH KANJIRAMATTOM , REPRESENTED BY DEFENDANTS 2,5 AND 6.** **2 FR.JOHN CHATHOTH, PRIEST, CHATHOTH HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM DESOM, AMBALLORE, KANJIRAMATTOM DESOM, AMBALLORE VILLAGE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O.** - **3 FR.N.K.JOSEPH, PRIEST, S/O.KURUVILA, THEKKEMYALIL HOUSE, NEDUMATTATHIL , KANJIRAMATTOM DESOM, AMBALLORE VILLAGE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O..** RFA 427/03 2 - **4 K.M.RAJU, S/O.MATHAI, KOLUTHAKKOTTIL HOUSE, PUTHUVASSERY DESOM, AMBALLORE VILLAGE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O..** - **5 ABRAHAM, S/O.ITTEERAH, CHATHOTH HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM DESOM, AMBALLORE VILLAGE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O.** - **6 C.C.PAULOSE, S/O.CHACKO, AGRICULTURIST, CHITTETH HOUSE, KULAYETTIKKARA DESOM, KULAYLETTIKARA, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O.** - **7 IYPE, VADAKKETHURUTHIL, AMBALOORE VILLAGE KANJIRAMATTOM P.O.** - **8 JOHN, S/O.VARKEY, AGRICULTURIST, KUZHIPPANATHIL HOUSE, KULAYETTIKKARA DESOM, AMBALLORE VILLAGE, KANJIRAM P.O.** - **9 C.J.GEORGE, S/O.JOHN, CONTRACTOR, CHERIATHAZHOOR HOUSE, AMBALLORE VILLAGE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O.,** - **10 YOHANNAN, S/O.ABRAHAM, KIZHAKKEMANTHARATH HOUSE, PUTHUVASSERI DESOM, AMBALLORE VILLAGE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O.** - **11 KURIAN COR EPISCOPA, KANIAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, RESIDING AT SIMHASANA CHURCH P.O., THIRUVALLA.** - **12 THOMAS MAR DIONYSIUS METROPOLITAN, KOTHAMANGALAM, VALIAPALLY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM.** - **13 M.K.GEORGE, VAZHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, CHETHICODE P.O., CHETHICODE, EDAKKATTUVAYAL VILLAGE, TRUSTEE, ST,IGNATIOUS CHURCH, KANJIRAMATTOM.** - **14 M.T.ISSAC, MOOLANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., KANJIRAMATTOM, AMBALLORE, KANAYANNOR TALUK, TRUSTEE, ST.IGNATIOUS CHURCH , KANJIRAMATTOM.** **ADDITIONAL R15 IMPLEADED** - **15 BABY M.VALSAN, S/O.M.D.VALSAN, AGED 33, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM, KANJIRAKKATTU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** RFA 427/03 3 **(*ADDITIONAL R15 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 16/12/04 ON IA 4328/04 )** **ADDITIONAL R16 AND R17 IMPLEADED** - **16 SARA SHINA KURIAN, AGED 75, D/O.KURIAN COR EPISCOPA, KANIAYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM KARA, AMABALLOOR VILLAGE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O. KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** - **17 SOMY MARY CHERIAN, AGED 67, -DO- -DO-** **(ADDITIONAL R16 AND R17 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 21-10-15 IN IA 2246/15)** **R11 BY ADV. SRI.B.DEEPAK R15 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO R11 BY ADV. SRI.P.GEORGE VARGHESE R1 TO R10,R13,R14,R15 BY ADV. SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN – R1 TO R10, R13, R14 BY ADV. SRI.M.C.SEN SR. R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM R7 BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN R16&17 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL R11 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL N.SHENOI R1 TO R 14 BY ADV. SRI.S.VENKATASUBRAMONIA IYERSR. R14 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKATESH R11 BY ADV. SRI.P.VISWANATHAN (SR) R11 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.VINOD** **THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** RFA 427/03 4 ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.163/1977, on the files of the Additional District Judge, Ernakulam-which was heard along with another suit, namely, O.S.No.165/1977-but dismissed, finding that it is not maintainable because the plaintiffs had not obtained leave of the Court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short). 2. Even though large amount of pleadings, materials and evidence are on record, when I consider the factual circumstances, as are recorded in the judgment, and go through the averments of the parties in their respective pleadings, it is clear that the dispute in question relates to the management and control of a Church by name St.Ignatius Orthodox (Jacobite) Syrian Church, Kanjiramattom, which is claimed by the plaintiffs to be a RFA 427/03 5 constituent of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church ('Malankara Church' for short). 3. The plaintiffs assert that the Church in question is to be governed only by the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church and have sought, _inter alia,_ a declaration that it should be administered in all matters of religious worship under the Catholicos cum Malankara Metropolitan and under the diocesan metropolitan of the Malankara Church. Consequential injunctions were also sought against the defendants from interfering with the religious worship and in the administration of the Church, along with its other institutions, on the assertion that these can be done only under the above mentioned 1934 Constitution. 4. When one goes through the pleadings on record, it becomes indubitable that the primary point of disputes between the parties are with RFA 427/03 6 respect to the management and control of the Church and the crucial question is whether it is constituent of the Malankara Church and therefore, liable to be governed under the 1934 Constitution. I say this because, while the plaintiffs assert that the Church is to be governed only under the 1934 Constitution, the defendants-who concede that it is a part of the Malankara Church-contend that it can be governed only under the 'Udampady', dated 18.05.1103 (ME) executed between the members of the Parish. 5. Be that so, it is now affirmatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, through the judgments in **P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma [AIR 1995 SC 2001]** and **K.S.Varghese and Others v. St.Peter's and St.Paul's Syrian Orthodox and Others [2017 (3) KLT 261 SC],** that all Churches under the Malankara Church is to be governed only under RFA 427/03 7 the 1934 Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also specifically mandated that all Courts in India issue no orders contrary to this and it is thus incredible that all the parties herein are implicitly bound by the same. 6. Of course, the defendants appear to urge a contention that the Church in question is not a constituent of the Malankara Church but that it is an independent Church established by the members of the Parish without affirming allegiance to the 1934 Constitution. However, it is conceded before me today by Sri.P.Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.K.J.Kuriachan, their learned counsel, that this contention is not being pressed and therefore, that they admit that the said constitution is applicable. 7. In the afore scenario, since the issues relating to the management and control RFA 427/03 8 of Churches under the Malankara Church are now conclusively concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **P.M.A. Metropolitan and K.S.Varghese** (supra), I am of the firm view that merely because the suit has been dismissed by the Trial Court finding it to be bad for want of leave, the defendants cannot claim control or management of the Church, contrary to the declarations in the afore judgments; and therefore, that the suit deserves to be decreed to that extent. In the conspectus of the above, I allow the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and decree and consequently decree the suit declaring that the 1[st] defendant Church, namely St.Ignatius Orthodox (Jacobite) Syrian Church, Kanjiramattom, shall be administered in all matters of religious worship and administration of assets as per the 1934 Constitution. RFA 427/03 9 ## To be spoken to This matter has been listed today for 'being spoken to' since, after I dictated judgment on 07.02.2020, Sri. K.J. Kuriachan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 submitted that Sri. P. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel, had a further submission to make, with respect to the merits of the matter. 2. In such circumstances, I have heard Sri. P. Viswanathan, instructed by Sri. K.J. Kuriachan today. 3. The learned Senior Counsel submits that though the declaration made by this Court that the 1934 Constitution will apply to the Church cannot be contested at this stage, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he prayed that this Court may not enter into any of the other prayers made in the plaint, since they are no longer relevant. He submitted that another suit has been filed by RFA 427/03 10 certain other persons, who are similarly situated as the plaintiffs herein, which is numbered as O.S. No. 17/2016, on the files of the I Additional District Court, Ernakulam, and that issues relating to the conduct of elections to the management of the Church and such other are still pending before it. 4. Even when I hear P. Viswanathan as afore, the fact remains that on account of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court **P.M.A.** **Metropolitan and K.S. Varghese** (supra), it is enjoined on this Court to declare that the Church is governed by the 1934 Constitution and that none of the defendents shall act in any manner contrary to the said Constitution. This is all that this Court has done in the judgment in question; and I, therefore, do not deem it necessary or appropriate to modify it in any manner, even though I hear the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel that another suit is RFA 427/03 **==> picture [13 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** filed by certain other persons. In any case, the filing of such a suit or its pendency would not in any manner influence this suit since, admittedly, this has been filed invoking the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of the CPC. Consequently, this motion is closed. **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE**