Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
Fr. O.S. Kuriakose S/o O.T. Scaria – Appellant
Versus
Fr. Andrews Chiravathara – Respondent
R.S.A. No. 197 of 2019, R.F.A. Nos. 174, 310 of 2010
Decided On : 10-03-2020
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Section 92-Merely because the suit contains a declaratory relief it will not take the suit out of Section 92 of the Code. If a suit is filed and going by the nature of the suit it falls within the parameters of Section 92 of the Code, then such a suit will be maintainable only if the leave of the appropriate court prior to its institution has been obtained. It is not every court, which is competent to grant leave to institute the suit. It is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or the empowered Court, which can grant the leave and thereafter entertain the suit.
Statement of facts:
Original suits were filed in representative capacity, for the governance of St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church (Pallipratchu Church), Neelimangalam; St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, Marygiri and Sehiyon Church, Onakkoor, which are stated to be Parish Churches of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. By the impugned judgments and decrees those original suits are dismissed for want of leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -The perpetual fight between the Patriarch faction and the Catholicos faction for managing the affairs of Parish Churches of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church culminated in the judgment of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese vs. St. Peter's and St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church, (2017) 15 SCC 333. The appellants assail the impugned judgments and decrees, mainly relying on the decision of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese. Since common issues are raised, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
Finding of the court:
In Fr. Issac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa the Apex Court reiterated that, there can be no further litigation as the decision in representative suit is binding and that, it is the constitutional duty of all concerned to obey the judgment and order of the Apex Court. In the said decision, it is made clear that, by the decision in K.S. Varghese the Apex Court intended peace to come in Church. The Apex Court directed the courts to decide all pending matters following the decision in K.S. Varghese, which has been affirmed thereafter umpteen number of times, and restrained all the civil courts and this Court not to pass any order in violation of the mandate of the decision in K.S. Varghese.
Result: Appeals are allowed
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
A suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) can only be instituted after obtaining prior leave from the competent court, which is a mandatory precondition for such suits (!) (!) .
The suits discussed involve disputes over the management and administration of Churches that are recognized as public trusts and are of a religious and charitable nature. These suits are inherently within the scope of Section 92, as they seek to address breaches of trust or require court directions for trust administration (!) (!) .
The primary issue in these cases is whether the suits were properly filed with the requisite leave of court. The courts have consistently held that suits filed without such leave are not maintainable, and this procedural requirement is strictly enforced (!) (!) (!) .
The disputes often involve factions within the Churches, with claims based on constitutional provisions, historical agreements, and the management of Church properties. The courts have emphasized that the management of Church properties and internal affairs must conform to the applicable constitutional framework, primarily the 1934 Constitution, which is considered binding and valid (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The courts have repeatedly affirmed that the decisions and judgments of the highest courts, especially those that have settled the core issues of management, authority, and constitutional validity, are binding on all parties and must be obeyed to maintain peace and order within the Churches (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The law recognizes the hierarchical structure of Church authority, with specific powers vested in designated authorities such as the Diocesan Metropolitan, the Malankara Metropolitan, and the Patriarch, depending on the constitutional scheme. The Patriarch's authority over temporal matters is limited, and the management of Church affairs must be carried out according to the constitutional provisions (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The property of the Churches, including Church buildings and cemeteries, is held in trust for the benefit of the Parishioners and the Church community. No faction or majority can unilaterally usurp or transfer these properties outside the framework of the Constitution, and any such attempt is considered invalid (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The constitutional provisions, especially the 1934 Constitution, provide a comprehensive scheme for the management, appointment of clergy, and administration of properties. These provisions are to be followed strictly, and any deviation or attempt to create parallel management systems is unlawful (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The courts have consistently held that suits seeking control over Church management or properties are essentially disputes over the administration of a public trust. Consequently, such suits require the prior permission (leave) under Section 92, and suits filed without this leave are not maintainable (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The final and binding judgment in these matters is the one that affirms the applicability and validity of the 1934 Constitution, which governs the Churches' affairs. Any attempt to ignore or bypass this judgment is not permissible, and the courts are directed to act in accordance with the settled legal position (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The law discourages the formation of parallel systems of church management under the guise of spiritual authority or faith, emphasizing that the management of Church properties and internal affairs must adhere to the established constitutional scheme (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The suits involving disputes over Church management are considered representative suits, and the decisions in these suits are binding on all interested parties, including those not directly involved in the litigation, to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and ensure peace (!) (!) (!) .
The law recognizes the rights of Parishioners to leave a Church but prohibits them from taking Church property outside the framework of the constitutional management scheme, affirming that the properties are held in trust for the Church community (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal principles reinforce that the management of Churches and their properties must conform to the constitutional provisions, that procedural safeguards such as obtaining leave under Section 92 are strictly enforced, and that the highest court's judgments are binding to ensure peace and order within the Church community (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance regarding this matter.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
1. R.S.A. No. 197 of 2019 arises out of the judgment and decree of the Additional District Court, Kottayam in A.S. No. 174 of 2012, arising out of the judgment and decree of the Munsiffs' Court, Ettumanoor in O.S. No. 130 of 2008. R.F.A. No. 174 of 2010 arises out of the judgment and decree of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam in O.S. No. 31 of 2002. R.F.A. No. 310 of 2010 arises out of the judgment and decree of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam in O.S. No. 38 of 1999. The respective original suits were filed in representative capacity, for the governance of St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church (Pallipratchu Church), Neelimangalam; St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, Marygiri and Sehiyon Church, Onakkoor, which are stated to be Parish Churches of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. By the impugned judgments and decrees those original suits are dismissed for want of leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘the Code’). The perpetual fight between the Patriarch faction and the Catholicos faction for managing the affairs of Parish Churches of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church culminated in the judgment of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese vs. St. Peter's and St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church, (2017) 15 SCC 333. The appellants assail the impugned judgments and decrees, mainly relying on the decision of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese. Since common issues are raised, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. R.S.A. No. 197 of 2019 - The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 130 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiffs' Court, Ettumanoor and the appellant in A.S. No. 174 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Court, Kottayam. Going by the averments in the plaint, St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church (Pallipratchu Church), Neelimangalam, Kottayam, situated in plaint A schedule property is a constituent Parish Church of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, liable to be governed under the 1934 Constitution, as held by the Apex Court in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan vs. Moran Mar Marthoma, (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 286. The Church, which is in Kottayam Diocese, is S. No. 570 in the schedule of 1064 Churches in O.S. No. 4 of 1979, which culminated in the decision in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan. The appellant/plaintiff, who has been appointed as the Vicar of the Church by Geevarghese Mar Ivanaos, the Diocesan Metropolitan of Kottayam, by the order dated 26.12.2007, filed O.S. No. 130 of 2008, alleging that the 1st defendant (the 1st respondent in this appeal) is presently functioning as Priest in the Church without any lawful authority, who is one among the persons who disowned the 1934 Constitution. The said defendant is acting without any order of appointment by the Diocesan Metropolitan of Kottayam. As per the 1934 Constitution, no one except the appellant or his successor and Priest Assistants appointed by the Diocesan Metropolitan of Kottayam has the right to function as Priest in the Church. In the suit, which was filed along with an application under Order I Rule 8 of the Code, defendants 2 to 7 (respondents 2 to 7 in this appeal) are impleaded representing all erstwhile Parishioners of the Church, who are opposing the governance of Church under the 1934 Constitution and supporting the 1st defendant in his illegal functioning as Priest of the Church. The plaintiff contended that, as per Sections 12 and 15 of the 1934 Constitution, a lawfully appointed Vicar is the President of the Parish Assembly, who has to convene the Parish Assembly. Vicar is the President of the Parish Managing Committee, who has to convene the same, as provided under Sections 26 and 28. As per Section 39, the Vicar is the Joint Steward of the assets of the Parish Church. As per Section 40, the right to appoint and remove Parish Vicar and Priest vests with the Diocesan Metropolitan. In the suit, the plaintiff sought for a decree de
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
