Joseph Vithayathil, J.

The defendants who are 11 in number are the appellants. They are members of the London Mission Church at Kadamalakunnu in South Travancore. The plaintiff claims to be the pastor of that Church. The suit is for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to conduct service in the church as pastor and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing him in the conduct of such service. The main allegations in the plaint are the following: The plaint church belongs to the London Missionary Society Corporation incorporated in England. The Corporation acts in Travancore through its power of attorney-holder, Rev. H. H. Eastaff (P. W. 3). The London Mission Churches in Travancore are in the possession and control of church workers appointed by appropriate councils and committees consisting of elected representatives of the churches. “The supreme body” that governed the churches was the Travancore Church Council (T.C.C.) which is now called the South Travancore Diocesan Council (S.T.D.C.). The London Mission Churches in Travancore were “in association with” the South India United Church (S.I.U.C.) till 26th September 1947 on which date the South India United Church resolved to dissolve itself and unite with the Church of England and the Methodist Church in South India to form the Church of South India (C.S. I.). The Travancore Church Council (T.C.C.) which was one of the eight Church Councils that formed the South India United Church was effectively represented in the negotiations for this union and it resolved by a 75% majority to accept the scheme of union proposed by the three negotiating churches. After the union the London Mission Churches in Travancore are “in association with” the Church of South India (C.S.I.) and the South Travancore Diocesan Council (S.T. D.C.) which has taken the place of the Travancore Church Council (T.C.C.) is now “the Supreme body” that governs the London Mission Churches in Travancore. The first defendant who was the church-worker of the plaint church resigned his office and the plaintiff was appointed pastor of the church by the Bishop of South Travancore Diocese (P. W. 4). The defendants who had secured the key of the Church refused to open the church when the plaintiff wanted to conduct service in the church on 24-12-1123. The service had, therefore, to be conducted on the verandah of the church and the election of deacons also took place there. Thereafter, the power-of-attorney-holder of the London Missionary Society Corporation authorised the plaintiff to enter the church and accordingly the plaintiff entered the church on 31-12-1123 and conducted service. While the service was about to finish the - defendants entered the church with the help of the police, caused disturbance there and attempted to assault the plaintiff and others. Consequently the congregation was advised to disperse. According to the plaintiff, he alone has the right to conduct service in the church, and the church and its premises are in his possession in continuity of the possession of the London Missionary Society Corporation through its accredited agents and church-workers for the last 150 years, and the defendants have no manner of right to obstruct him in opening the church and conducting service there. The plaintiff therefore prayed for a declaration that he is entitled to conduct divine worship, administer sacraments and solemnise marriages in the plaint church and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing him in opening the church and conducting such services. The defendants were impleaded in their individual capacity and not as representatives of the congregation of the church. The congregation was not made a party to the suit and no permission was sought by the plaintiff under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. All the defendants contested the suit. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement while defendants 3 to 11