The judgment established the legal entity of the church as a person entitled to relief under the Kerala Act XXXI of 1958, based on the interpretation of 'agriculturist' and 'person' and the application of Canon Law provisions and Ecclesiastical law.

1. A short question, which js likely to arise rather frequently in this State having several churches, is involved in the Civil Revision Petition. The St. Mary's Church, Kainadi Muri, Chennamkary Village, through Joseph Abraham filed a petition for relief under Kerala Act XXXI of 1958. The creditors raised the objection that the church was not a person and was not therefore entitled to claim relief under the Act. The objection was over-ruled, by the lower court and one of the creditors has filed the Civil Revision Petition.

2. The short question for consideration is whether the church can claim to be an agriculturist as contemplated by the Act. S.2(a) of the Act enacts that "agriculturist" means a person who has an interest, other than as a simple mortgagee, in any agricultural or horticultural land in the State of Kerala. "Person" is not defined in the Act. But the General Clauses Act says that "person" shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. Therefore the sole point is whether the church is a "person" who can claim to be an agriculturist.

3. There are two or three ways of looking at the question. One is to treat the Roman Catholic Church (the church in the present case is of the Roman Catholic faith) as a voluntary association as distinct from the Protestant Church, which is an established church. There are decisions which take this view (vide Rev. Fr. Pathrose Fernandas v. Swamiyadian Gnanaprakasam, 8. T.L.T. 175 and Gasnari Louis v. Rev. Fr. C.P. Gonsalves, 1918-47 I.C. 941- 35 M.L.J. 407). If the church is thus treated as a voluntary association, then the definition of. "person" in the General Clauses Act will apply.

4. The second mode of viewing the question is to treat the head of the church, for example, the Vicar, the Bishop or the Ordinary as a croporation sole. The device employed in such eases is not to,, ascribe legal personality to the foundation or the institution itself, but to regard, as corporations by Canon Law, the officers connected with its management. Salmond in his treatise on jurisprudence says:

"The chief difficulty in apprehending the true nature of a corporation sole is that it bears the same name as the natural person who is its sole member and who represents it and acts for it. Each of them is the Sovereign, or the Bishop or the Solicitor to the Treasury. Nevertheless under each of these names two persons live, one is a human being administering for the time being the duties and affairs of the office. He alone is visible to the eyes of the layman.; The other is a mychical being whom only lawyers know of and whom only the eye of the law can perceive. Ye is the true occupant of the office. He never dies or retires; the other, the person of flesh and blood, is merely his agent and representative through whom he performs his functions. The living official comes and goes, but this offspring of the law remains the same person".

In this view it is the Vicar, the Bishop or the Ordinary in the ideal sense, as different from the incumbent in flesh and blood of the office, that is the juristic person that holds the property.

5. Yet a third mode of approaching the question is to treat the institution or the church itself as a legal entity or juristic person capable of holding property, of course acting through human agencies. This is the view which was adopted by the learned judges in Kunju Varkki v. Neelacandan Nambyar (4 C.L.R. 351). This view was adversely commented upon by Varugis, J. in a later case in Mathu v. Pathappan

(7 C.L.R. 69) and the learned judge opined that there was no sufficient basis in the history of the law for the position that the church or a particular church was as such a juristic person. But I am inclined to take the view that this last mode of looking at the question is the best mode and according to me, this has the support of the Ecclesiastical Law as well. At page 187 of Civil Ecclesiastical Law by Jerome A. Saldanha, the