T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

Both these appeals are filed against the judgment in O.S.No.43/2007 rendered by the Ist Additional District Court, Ernakulam. R.FA. No.589/2011 is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit and R.F.A. No.655/2011 is filed by defendants 13 and 15 and they are aggrieved by the dismissal of the counter claim filed by them.

2. We heard learned Senior Counsel Shri N. Sukumaran appearing for the appellants in R.F.A.No.589/2011 and learned Senior Counsel Shri K. Ramakumar appearing for the appellants in R.F.A.No.655/2011, Shri R.D. Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2, 5, 17 and 18 in R.F.A.No.589/2011 who are supporting the appellants, learned Senior Counsel Shri S. Sreekumar appearing for respondents 3 and 9 in R.F.A.No.589/2011 and respondents 6 and 12 in R.F.A.No.655/2011, learned Senior Counsel Shri T. Krishnanunni and Shri Paul Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing respectively for the respondents 10, 11 and 12 in R.F.A.No.589/2011 and respondents 13 and 14 in the other appeal.

3. Before going into the arguments of the respective counsel, we will extract the contentions of both sides in the plaint as well as in the written statements.

4. The controversy is between the two factions of parishioners of the first respondent Church, viz. St. Peter's and St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church, Kolencherry. The suit was filed by plaintiffs 1 to 3, arraying 12 defendants and additional defendants 13 to 16 have been subsequently impleaded. The first defendant is the Church represented by its Vicar who was arrayed as the second defendant (Patriarch faction) and the third defendant (Orthodox faction) is also a priest. The suit is one filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and leave has been granted by the Court. The plaintiffs sought the intervention of the court for having a proper administration of the Church which according to them, is a public trust of a religious nature. The plaint averments show the following: There were factional fights and prolonged litigations between the two factions of the parishioners of the first defendant Church and they are: (i) Orthodox faction, and (ii) Patriarch faction. At the time of filing of the suit, the two factions were conducting services in the Church in turns and the second defendant is the Vicar and the third defendant is the Priest offering services on behalf of Orthodox faction. Plaintiffs and defendants 2, 5 and 7 belong to the Patriarch faction and the other defendants are parishioners belonging to the Catholicos (Orthodox) faction.

5. It is averred in para 3 of the plaint that from the very beginning the affairs of the Church and its assets were being administered by a committee consisting of its Priests and parishioners. An Udampady was executed by the representatives of the Church in the year 1908 AD regarding the manner in which its affairs are to be administered. The same was superceded by another Udampady dated 13.12.1088 ME (corresponding to the year 1913). As per the Udampady of 1913, provisions were made for the priests to render service in turn and the trustees to administer the affairs of the Church. Five priests and 16 lay trustees were parties to the Udampady. It is averred that the first defendant Church was being administered all along as per the said Udampady. There arose factional fights which resulted in closure of the Church and 0. S.No. 19/1980 was instituted by the Orthodox faction. A receiver was appointed to manage the assets of the Church and the suit was finally dismissed as per judgment dated 27.2.1997 as no leave was obtained. The court directed the receiver to hand over possession of the assets to the survivors among the defendants in that case.

6. The first plaintiff and defendants 4 to 9 were also parties to the said suit and the first defendant was the 8 the defendant therein. According to the plaintiffs, the survivors among defendants I to 18 in O.S.No.19/1980 who were the elected committee members me