The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of valid incardination and excardination as per Canon Law for a Priest to hold the office within a particular Diocese.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendant's revision against the order dated 8th August 1986 passed by the Principal i Munsiff in O. S. 511 of 1986 holding that the Court has got jurisdiction to try the Suit.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief leading to the institution of the Suit are :

The plaintiff is a Catholic Christian Priest, now incharge of Nirmala Mathe Parish Church, Kutta and Ponnampet in South Kodagu which comes within the limits of Mysore Diocese. The plaintiff was formerly attached to Bangalore Diocese. He opted to serve Mysore Diocese. On 6-12-1984 the Bishop of Mysore appointed the plaintiff as the Priest of Ponnampet and Kutta and therefore, he started educational institution and is also carrying on the constructive work there itself. The bishop of Mysore passed away on 9-5-1985 in the City of Mysore. The post of the Bishop is yet to be filled up by the Pope. Immediately after the death of Bishop of Mysore, the plaintiff informed the Administrator that he would continue as the Priest in Mysore Diocese and that he had no intention to go back to Bangalore Diocese and that he had no authority to incardinate him in his Diocese as per Canon Law No. 267. It is the prerogative of the Bishop alone as per the canon Law No. 267. As the Bishop of Mysore passed away on 9-5-1985 there was none to incardinate the plaintiff to the Diocese of Mysore. But he was continued with the Diocese of mysore from the year 1984. The late Bishop M Fernandes had appointed the plaintiff to the diocese of Mysore in the month of February 1983. In the beginning, the plaintiff was appointed as the Chaplain to Brid getine Convent, Mysore, then spiritual Director at St. Mary's Seminary, mysore and finally also the priest of Nirmala Mathe Church at Kutta in Kodagu District. During this appointment, there was not even an iota of refusal to interrupt the in cardination into Mysore diocese. The plaintiff was asked to start a High School, at Kutta Parish, and accordingly, he submitted a comprehensive plan for the purpose of starting of a High School. But all of a sudden, the Administrator issued a notice not to start the High School on the ground that permission had not been obtained from the Government and the facilities are not available. Subsequently, the administrator has posted some other Priest to Kutta School and the Institution is continued to be running which was started by the plaintiff. On 21-6-1986 the Administrator of Mysore Diocese passed an order appointing Rev. Fr. Charles Noronha as the Priest in charge of the Church of nirmala Mathe, Kutta and further directed him to take charge from the plaintiff on 21st June 1986 or a day convenient later. It was further ordered that the handing over of charge should be recorded in the Parish Church Register in the prescribed form. It was also ordered that all the account Books Registers and files along with other documents should be handed over to him. Even though such an order was passed, the Rev. Father Charles Noronha had not taken charge at all till today. The plaintiff has continued to be in charge of the Institution. The defendant has directed the plaintiff to hand over charge to Rev. Fr. Charles Noronha and further directed him to remain in a clergy house till 8th July 1986. The defendant further directed the plaintiff that three years exclalustration period expires on 8th July 1986 and further directed that it could not be extended and the Administrator of the defendant has directed the plaintiff to go back to his society by 8th July 1986, The plaintiff urges that the Administrator has no authority to direct him to go back to his society, namely, Bangalore Society since this right is vested only with the bishop as per the Canon Law. The defendant has now already posted Rev. Fr. Charles Noronha and has not shown the place of posting to the plaintiff. His intention is to send the plaintiff from the Mysore Diocese and hence a suit had been filed by the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff is a Catholic Xian a