1. Dispute over the right to conduct religious services and manage church properties gifted as Bhadrasanam properties — applicability of the 1934 Constitution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 17 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 854
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, R. BANUMATHI, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
MATHEWS MAR KOORILOS (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC. – Appellants
Versus
M. PAPPY (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6263-6265 OF 2001
Decided On : 28-08-2018
IMPORTANT POINT
1934 constitution is valid, not in violation of Articles 25 and 26, and in consonance with AIR 1959 SC 31 and 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286 and (2017) 15 SCC 333.
Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Held, 1934 constitution is in consonance with AIR 1959 SC 31 and 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286 and (2017) 15 SCC 333. (Para 15)
AIR 1959 SC 31; 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286; (2017) 15 SCC 333 – Relied upon
(b) Ecclesiastical law – 1934 constitution is valid – Temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administration of the Malankara Church – Vested with Malankara Metropolitan and other authorities appointed by Malankara Metropolitan – Malankara Metropolitan enjoys all the temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administrative powers. (Para 16)
(2017) 15 SCC 333 – Relied upon
(c) Constitution of India – Articles 25 and 26 – Held, 1934 constitution is not in violation of Articles 25 and 26. (Para 22)
AIR 1954 SC 526; (1996) 8 SCC 470 – Referred
1951 SCC OnLine Ker 7 – Set aside
Facts of the case:
Suit O.S. No.187 of 1977 was filed by appellant No.1/Metropolitan of Quilon Diocese of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and appellant No.2/Vicar appointed by him for St. Mary’s Church, Kattachira. Defendants/respondents in the suit represent the Parishioners of the Church. Plaintiffs/appellants inter alia prayed for a declaration that the Quilon Metropolitan and the Vicars appointed by him have exclusive right to conduct religious services in the plaint church, Cemetery and Kiurisumthotty and prayed for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and others who do not obey the plaintiffs/appellants from entering the plaint church and plaint schedule properties.
The trial court decreed the appellant’s suit O.S. No.187 of 1977.
The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal thereginst. The Division Bench reversed the order of the single judge.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the church is a trust managed by parishioners under a separate constitution or subject to the 1934 Constitution and the Metropolitan's authority. (Para 3 , 4 , 21 , 22 )
3. The 1934 Constitution is binding on parish churches; the Patriarch lacks temporal power to appoint Vicars; appointment of Vicars is a secular matter. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 )
4. The 1934 Constitution governs the administration of parish churches, prevailing over parallel management systems or claims of spiritual supremacy by the Patriarch. (Para 14 , 16 , 18 )
5. Appeals allowed and the Division Bench judgment set aside, affirming the Metropolitan's right to appoint Vicars and manage the church properties. (Para 23 )
6. Is the 1934 Constitution binding on individual parish churches?
Yes. The 1934 Constitution fully governs the affairs of parish churches and prevails over any individual church's attempt to create a parallel system of management or a new constitution. (Para 11 , 14 , 16 )
7. Does the Patriarch of Antioch have the power to appoint Vicars or priests in parish churches?
No. The Patriarch has no temporal powers over the churches and cannot interfere in governance by appointing Vicars, priests, or Deacons; such powers are reserved for the Church hierarchy under the 1934 Constitution. (Para 12 , 14 , 16 )
8. Is the appointment of a Vicar considered a religious ritual protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India?
No. The appointment of a Vicar is a secular matter. Therefore, making such appointments according to the 1934 Constitution does not violate the fundamental rights to freedom of religion. (Para 14 , 22 )
9. Can parishioners decide by majority to move a church out of the Malankara Church or usurp its property?
No. Once a trust is created for beneficiaries, the beneficiaries cannot usurp its property or management. Parishioners may leave individually, but cannot take properties out of the 1934 Constitution's ambit without hierarchy approval. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT
R. Banumathi, J.
Suit O.S. No.187 of 1977 was filed by appellant No.1/Metropolitan of Quilon Diocese of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and appellant No.2/Vicar appointed by him for St. Mary’s Church, Kattachira. Defendants/respondents in the suit represent the Parishioners of the Church. Plaintiffs/appellants inter alia prayed for a declaration that the Quilon Metropolitan and the Vicars appointed by him have exclusive right to conduct religious services in the plaint church, Cemetery and Kiurisumthotty and prayed for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and others who do not obey the plaintiffs/appellants from entering the plaint church and plaint schedule properties.
2. Case of the appellants is that as per Ext.-A3 (original of which is Ext.-B19) assignment-cum-gift deed dated 29.06.1972, the first defendant C.K. Koshy assigned the plaint properties along with the church and cemetery etc. situated thereon, to the Metropolitan, Quilon Diocese and that they are entitled to conduct religious services and to manage the church and its properties. The Parishioners who question such authority are not entitled to hold any office as members of the Church Committee or to enter the church.
3. Defendants/respondents who are said to be the representatives of the Parishioners contended that the Church was founded with the object of conducting religious services by religious dignitaries who possess the spiritual grace transmitted from the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, for the benefit of the Parishioners. The church and its properties constitute a trust and can be used only for the purpose for which it was founded. The respondents/defendants contended that the plaintiffs/appellants have repudiated and defied the spiritual powers of the Patriarch and the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled to conduct any religious services in the plaint church. According to them, the plaint church is administered under the Constitution framed by the Parishioners marked as Ext.-B9 dated 23.01.1959 and no priest can function in the church without the consent of the Parishioners.
4. The Parishioners/respondents have filed a separate suit in O.S. No.17 of 1976 challenging the validity of Ext.-A3-Sale-cum-Gift Deed (dated 29.06.1972) in favour of Quilon Metropolitan. On the same grounds taken by them in the other suit, they alleged that as beneficiaries of the Church and as its Managing Committee Members, they are entitled to see that its properties are not lost. They prayed for a decree declaring that Ext.-A3-Sale-cum-Gift Deed is ab initio void and for a perpetual injunction restraining the Metropolitan from implementing any of the provisions in the said document.
5. The trial court vide common judgment dated 06.03.1986 dismissed the suit O.S. No.17 of 1976 filed by the respondents and decreed the appellant’s suit O.S. No.187 of 1977, declaring that the appellants have the right to conduct religious services in the plaint church and cemetery. The trial court granted permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants and persons who do not obey the plaintiffs/appellants from entering the church and the plaint schedule properties and conducting religious services, and obstructing others who obey the plaintiffs/appellants. The respondents/defendants were also restrained from obstructing the appellants in completing the construction of the Kattachira church building or attending to its repairs.
6. Being aggrieved, the respondents/defendants filed appeals A.S. Nos.140 and 142 of 1986 in O.S. No.187 of 1977 before the High Court of Kerala challenging the common judgment dated 06.03.1986. The Single Judge dismissed both the appeals and held as under:-
1. Various clauses of Ext. A3 gift deed dated 29.06.1972 make it clear that the executant Koshy gave the assignment-cum-gift in favour of the Quilon Metropolitan intending that it may be treated as Bhadrasanam properties. Ext. A3 also provided that the Metropolitan may directly a
