SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1952 Supreme(SC) 41

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R. DAS, GHULAM HASAN AND JAGANNADHA DAS, JJ.
Moran Mar Basselios Chatholicos and another, Appellants
Versus
Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 193 of 1951
21st May, 1954
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. P. Engineer, Senior Advocate (Messrs. P. N. Bhagwati, M. Abraham and M. S. K. Sastri, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, Mr. C. L. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India and Mr. K. P. Abraham, Senior Advocate, (Messrs. T. R. Balakrishna Aiyar and M. R. Krishna Pillai, Advocates with them), for Respondent No. 2.

Advocates:
K.P.Abraham, M.Abraham, M.B.Krishna Pillai, M.C.SETALVAD, M.S.K.Shastri, N.P.ENGINIR, P.N.BHAGWATI, T.R.BALAKRISHNA AIYAR

Headnote:ORDER PASSED WITH CONSENT OF THE COUNSEL - A PARTY CANNOT AS SAIL AN ORDER PASSED WITH CONSENT OF PARTIES - MISCONCEPTION BY COURT OF A CONCESSION MADE BY ADVOCATE OR OF ATTITUDE TAKEN BY PARTY

       -it is not open to a party to assail it, but a wrong and an erroneous concession made by a pleader does not bind the party - Sha Mulchand v. Jawahar Mills Limited, AIR 1954 SC 98; M.M.B. Chattalicos v. M.P. Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526. In the case of Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment v. U. Krishna Rao, AIR 1970 SC 1114, it appeared that the High Court proceeded upon an incorrect view of the contribution leviable, on submission of the Advocate General appearing for the State that the question did not fall to be determined because rules prescribing the contribution payable by the respondent temple, “had yet to be made, which meant that until such rule was made no contribution could be demanded”.

       

Judgment

JAGANNADHADAS, J. This appeal by Special Leave arises out of a suit filed in the District Court of Kottayam as far back as in 1938. This suit was concerned with the disputes that had arisen between two rival sections of the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Christian community regarding the fundamental tenets of their church and the possession and administration of the church properties.

In order to fully appreciate the rival contentions carefully formulated and elaborately argued by learned advocates for both parties appearing before us, it is necessary to know the genesis of the controversy between the parties which has behind it a fairly long history and which must accordingly be stated at the very outset.

2. In Malabar there is a Christian community commonly known as the Malakara Jacobite Syrian Christians. That community traces its origin to 52 A. D. when St. Thomas, one of the disciples of Jesus Christ came to Malabar and established the church there. In 1599 A. D. under the influence of the Portuguese political power on the West Coast of India the community accepted the Roman Catholic faith This affiliation, however, did not last long. At a meeting known as Mattancheri meeting held in 1654 the Roman Catholic Supremacy was thrown off and the Church in Malabar came under the authority of the Patriarch of Antoich who began to depute Metropolitans (Bishop) from Persia and Syria for ordaining Mrtropolitans in Malabar.

This continued up to 1800 A. D. Between 1800 A. D. and 1842 A. D. the local Metropolitan ordained his successor. The last of the Metropolitans so ordained was Mar Cheppat Dionysius. In 1840 one Mar Mathew Athanasius went to Syria and got himself orained as Metropolitan by the then reigning Partiarch of Antioch. This is said to be the first instance of a Metropolitan being ordained by the Patriach himself.

3. There were dispute between the Church Mission Society and the Malankara Jacobite Syrin Church over properties held jointly by them. These disputes were settled by what is known as the Cochin Award made in 1840. This award divided the properties between the two bodies and so far as the properties allotted to the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Cochin were concerned it provided that they should be administered by three Trustees, namely, (i) the Malankara Metropolitan, (ii) a Kathanar (i. e., priestly) trustee and (iii) a lay trustee.

4. In 1842 Mar Mathew Athanasius returned to India but Mar Cheppat Dionysius refused to hand over charge to the former. In 1846 the Patriarch of Antioch set one Mar Kurilos the settle the dispute. Mar Kurilos adopted a novel way of setting the disputes. He excommunicated Mar Mathew Athanasius and appointed himself as the Metropolitan of Malankara. This he is said to have done by utilising certain blank papers containing the signatures of the Patriarch. Mar Cheppar Dionysius withdrew in favour of Mar Kurilos but Mar Mathew Athanasius persisted in his claim.

In 1848 the Travancore Government set up what was called the Quillon Committee to settle the dispute. That Committee decided in favour of Mar Mathew Athanasius who, therefore, took over charge as Malankara Metropolitan. It appears that later on Mar Mathew Athanasius incurred the displeasure of the Patriarch who in 1865 excommunicated Mar Mathew Athanasius and ordained one Mar Joseph Dionysius, who had gone to Syria, as Metropolitan. On the return of Mar Joseph Dionysuis, however, Mar Mathew Athanasius refused to hand over charge to the former but continued in possession of his office and the church properties.

5. In 1876 Patriarch Peter III came to Malabar. He called a meeting of the accredited, representatives of all the churches in Malabar which accepted the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch. The said representatives met together in a Sunod called the Mulamthuruthu Synod under the presidentship of Patriarch Peter III.

At that Sunod the Malankara Syrian Christian Association, popularly called the Malankara Association, wa









































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top