High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-06-21Disposed of accordingly

St. George Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, Kathipparathadam, Chelachuvadu, Idukki v. Fr. Geevarghese Vallikkattill and others

Case / Petition Number:OP(C) No. 1418 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2016-06-21
Court Decision / Holding: This Original Petition (Civil) is disposed of accordingly. The High Court directs the trial court to proceed with the trial and to consider the relief sought in Interlocutory Application No.386 of 2016 during the course of the final hearing, in light of the decisions cited by the parties.
Final Disposition: Disposed of accordingly

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

St. George Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, Kathipparathadam, Chelachuvadu, IDUKKI, rep. by Trustee Tojan Varghese, S/O LATE VARGHEZE, Eracheril (H), Kanjikuzhi Kara & Village, IDUKKI Dist.
Shaji Elias, S/O Elias, Niravath House, Chelachuvadu P.O., Kanjikkuzhi Village, IDUKKI Dist.

Respondents

Fr. Geevarghese Vallikkattill
Varkeykunju
George Karimpankkal
Charles Jacob
His Beatitude Baselios Thomas I Catholicos and Metropolitan Trustee
Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasius Metropolitan
H.G. Zacharias Mar Philoxinos Metropolitan
Fr. Geevarghese
Saji Varghese
Eldhose

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sajan Varghese
• K. Liju. M.P

Counsels for Respondents

• S. Sreekumar
• P. Martin Jose
• P. Prijith
• Thomas P. Kuruvilla

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, St. George Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church (represented by its Trustee, Tojan Varghese) and another parishioner, filed OP(C) No. 1418 of 2016 challenging a prior order in Original Suit No. 177 of 2013 before the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kattappana. They sought declarations that the church and its precincts constitute an independent parish under the Antiochian Patriarchate and ecclesiastical hierarchy, free from the control of the Jacobite faction comprising listed respondents. A key interlocutory application, IA 386/2016, sought appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a referendum among parishioners using the Nalvazhi Register to ascertain the will of the members on disputed faith/governance questions. The respondents contested, and the trial court posted IA 386 with the suit for consideration at trial. The petition contends that such a referential inquiry at trial would cause hardship to the parish. The High Court, invoking PMA Metropolitan v Moran Mar Thoma and Mathew Yohannan v Varghese, held that the relief sought in IA 386 should be considered during the final hearing after trial, if necessary for proper adjudication. Accordingly, the court directed the trial court to proceed with the trial and consider IA 386 during final hearing, disposing of the petition accordingly.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that IA 386 seeks appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to hold a referendum among parishioners based on the Nalvazhi Register to determine the will of the members on the disputed questions of faith and control. They contend that the relief sought is within the scope of final adjudication and should be considered during final hearing, not as a standalone interim measure, to avoid prejudice and ensure proper adjudication of the suit. They rely on the decision in P.M.A. Metropolitan v Moran Mar Thoma (AIR 1995 SC 2001) as foundational, and seek clarification to ensure IA 386 is addressed at the appropriate stage.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the timing of IA 386 must be aligned with the guidance from prior authorities, notably the proposition in P.M.A. Metropolitan v Moran Mar Thoma, which this Court claimed was clarified by Mathew Yohannan v Varghese. They contend that the question of referenda and reliefs can be addressed during the final hearing after trial, if necessary for proper adjudication, to avoid prejudicial outcomes. They contend that the court below was correct in linking IA 386’s consideration to the final hearing, consistent with the cited authorities and the need for a holistic adjudication of the suit.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
P. M. A. Metropolitan v Moran Marthoma	AIR 1995 SC 2001	Mentioned Only	Proposition referenced by the court but clarified later by Mathew Yohannan; used as background material.
Mathew Yohannan v. Varghese	2013(4)KLT 945	Positive	Court relies on this decision to clarify the PMA Metropolitan proposition and to justify considering IA 386 during final hearing.

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 St. George Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, Kathipparathadam, Chelachuvadu, Idukki v. Fr. Geevarghese Vallikkattill and others 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 K.HARILAL** **TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **OP(C).No. 1418 of 2016 (O)** **--------------------------(I.A.NO.386/2016 IN OS.NO.177/2013 OF SUB COURT, KATTAPPANA)** **---------------------** ## **PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS NO.1 & 3/PLAINTIFFS NO.1 & 3.:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. ST. GEORGE JACOBITE SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH, KATHIPPARATHADAM, CHELACHUVADU, IDUKKI, REP. BY THE TRUSTEE, TOJAN VARGHESE, S/O.LATE VARGHESE, ERACHERIL (H),** **KANJIKUZHI KARA & VILLAGE, IDUKKI DIST.** ## **2. SHAJI ELIAS,** - **S/O.ELIAS, NIRAVATH HOUSE, CHELACHUVADU P.O., KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P** **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS, PETITIONERS 2,4 & 5 AND NON-PARTY/DEFENDANTS & PALAINTIFFS 2, 4&5.:** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. FR. GEEVARGHESE VALLIKKATTIL, VALLIKKATTIL HOUSE,** **KOLENCHERI P.O., VADAVUKODE VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 311** ## **2. VARKEYKUNJU,** - **S/O.VARKEY, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, CHELACHUVADU P.O., KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 501** **3. GEORGE KARIMPANAKKAL, S/O.POULOSE, KEERITHODE P.O., KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **4. CHARLES JACOB, S/O.JACOB, PAYYALIL HOUSE, KEERITHODE P.O., PUNNAYAR, KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 501** **2/-** **-2-** ## **OP(C).NO.1418/2016** **5. HIS BEATITUDE BASELIOS THOMAS I CATHOLICOS AND METROPOLITAN TRUSTEE, PATRIARCH IGNATIOUS ZAKKA I IWAS CENTRE (PATRIARCHAL CETRE), PUTHENCRUEZ POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 308** **6. DR.THOMAS MAR ATHANASIUS METROPOLITAN, BISHOP'S HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 661** **7. H.G.ZACHARIAS MAR PHILOXINOS METROPOLITAN, MAR GREGORIAN CENTRE, THOOTHOOTTI, THIRUVANCHOOR POST, KOTTAYAM-686 019.** ## **8. FR.GEEVARGHESE,** - **S/O.VARGHESE, KALARIKUNNEL HOUSE, ST.GEORGE JACOBITE SYRIAN, ORTHODOX CHURCH, KATHIPPARATHADAM, CHELACHUVADU POST, IDUKKI-685 501** ## **9. SAJI VARGHESE,** - **S/O.VARGHESE, KANJIRAKKATTU HOUSE, CHELACHUVADU P.O., KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 501** **10. ELDHOSE, S/O.ULAHANNAN, VETTUCHIRAYIL HOUSE, CHELACHUVADU P.O., KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 501** **R1,R2,R4 & R6 BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE** **SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **OP(C).No. 1418 of 2016 (O) ----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------------EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.177/2013 ON THE FILE OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KATTAPPANA. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 4 AND 6 IN EXHIBIT P1 SUIT. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF IA NO.386/2016 FILED IN EXHIBIT P1 SUIT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -------------------------------------------/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE** **==> picture [15 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> sts<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **K. HARILAL, J.** ## **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =** **O.P.(C) No. 1418 of 2016** **- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 21st day of June, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners are plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 in Original Suit No.177 of 2013, on the files of the Courts of Subordinate Judge, Kattappana and the petitioners in Interlocutory Application No.386 of 2012 filed therein. The above suit was filed for declaring that the 1[st] plaintiff church, including precincts is an independent parish church owing allegiance to the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East and His Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, in which the Orthodox faction, the defendants 1 to 4 and 6 and their men, including their successors have got no manner of right, title or interest whatsoever and for other reliefs. 2. According to the petitioners, the said church was established and consecrated at the **O.P.(C) No. 1418 of 2016** ## **-: 2 :-** instance of the people of Jacobite Community of the locality to meet their religious needs in terms of faith, tenets and practice of jacobites. It was the fundamental object and basic faith on the basis of which the said church was put up. It is contended that the members of the church have the right to take appropriate decisions regarding the faith of the church and such other relevant matters. On the above premises, they filed Interlocutory Application No.386 of 2016 and prayed for appointing an Advocate Commissioner and direct him to conduct a referendum among the parishioners of the plaintiff No.1, after convening general body of the plaintiffs church, on the basis of the Nalvazhi Register produced along with the Interlocutory Application and to ascertain the will of the members of the church on the issue **O.P.(C) No. 1418 of 2016** ## **-: 3 :-** referred in Serial Nos.1 to 3 in the said application. 3. After considering the said application, the court below passed an order on 12.04.2016, posting the said Interlocutory Application along with the suit for consideration, at the time of trial. According to the petitioners, the consideration of the said application also at the time of trial will cause much hardship to parish church in dispute and the petitioners were taking steps to challenge the same and to see that appropriate earnest orders are passed in the said application. Thus, the petitioners are aggrieved by the posting of the said Interlocutory Application along with final hearing of the suit after trial. The petitioners sought for a direction to the court below to consider and **O.P.(C) No. 1418 of 2016** ## **-: 4 :-** dispose the aforesaid Interlocutory Application before the commencement of the trial. 4. Though, this Original Petition (Civil) is filed, challenging the decision of the court below to consider the Interlocutory Application along with the suit, at the time of final hearing, after trial, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the relief sought for in this Original Petition (Civil) is confined to a clarification requiring to consider the Interlocutory Application at the time of final hearing, in the light of the decision in _**P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma**_ [AIR 1995 SC 2001]. 5. Going by the proceedings of the court below, it is seen that the case was posted on ## **O.P.(C) No. 1418 of 2016** ## **-: 5 :-** 15.06.2016 and now it stands adjourned in compliance with the interim order of this Court date 10.06.2016. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the proposition laid down in paragraph 141 of P.M.A. Metropolitans' case was clarified by this Court in _**Mathew Yohannan v. Varghese**_ [2013(4)KLT 945]. However, this Court finds that the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.386 of 2016 also must be considered, during the course of final hearing, after trial. I am of the opinion that if, the relief sought for in the said Interlocutory Application is considered during the course of final hearing, after trial that will not cause any prejudice to the petitioners. If the court feels that the reliefs sought for in the aforesaid **O.P.(C) No. 1418 of 2016** ## **-: 6 :-** Interlocutory Application are inevitable for proper adjudication of the question in controversy in the Original Suit, the court will pass orders, in accordance with law, in the light of the decisions referred to by both counsel. With the above view, I direct the trial court to proceed with the trial of the suit and consider the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.386 of 2016, during the course of final hearing. This Original Petition (Civil) is disposed of accordingly. DST Sd/- **K. HARILAL,** //True copy// P.A. To Judge **JUDGE**