Civil courts have jurisdiction to enforce civil rights related to community membership against religious customs, and endogamy practices cannot override established civil rights and identities.

JUDGMENT :

In diem vivere in lege sunt detestabilis (Delays in the law are hateful")

1. This appears to be a classic case where the above maxim finds its application. The sequence of facts that emerge in this case proves how a party can successfully destroy one's valuable right by playing delaying tactics.

2. The appellants are the defendants in O.S. No.923/1989 on the files of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kottayam. Before delving deep into the facts, it is pertinent to mention that the Regular Second Appeal had been dismissed by the judgment dated 30.1.2017. Thereafter, the appellants filed Review Petition No.450/2017 to review the impugned judgment. The said Review Petition was heard and allowed on 14.3.2018. Consequently, the judgment dated 30.1.2017 was recalled, the R.S.A. was reopened, re-heard and the Judgment was rendered dismissing the appeal. Against the order/judgment in the review petition and the appeal, the appellants preferred Civil Appeal Nos.10196-10197/2018 which was ordered on 1-10-2018. The Supreme Court, while retaining the order in the Civil Appeals, interfered with the Judgment in the appeal and restored the appeal and requested this Court to hear the appeal afresh. Thus, the appeal is on board for final hearing. In the meantime, another suit was filed raising the same issue involved in this case, which resulted in the filing of RSA No.656 of 2022 and connected cases, which were heard separately, though were tagged along with this appeal. Before proceeding further, it must be noted that the 2^nd appellant died on 14-6-2017, and an application for substitution was filed before the Supreme Court. However, no such petition is seen filed in this appeal. Hence, this Court has no other alternative but to dismiss the appeal as abated against the 2^nd appellant.

2.1 Succinctly stated, the facts are as follows:

The suit was one for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to issue a 'Vivahakuri' to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff, his parents and other members of the family are members of the Knanaya Catholic Community attached to the Holy Family Parish Church, Nattassery. They were accepted and acknowledged as members of the said Church from 1977 onwards, before that, they were members of other Parish Church coming under the jurisdiction of the Kottayam Diocese. His parents' marriage was conducted on 22-10-1956 in the Little Flower Knanaya Catholic Church, Othara, a Parish Church coming under the Kottayam Diocese. He was baptised in the said Church. As per the Canon Law and Rules and Practices governing the Kottayam Diocese and Parish Churches, the plaintiff is entitled to have every religious rites performed and conducted by the Vicar of the said Church. Nobody has any right to deny the said privilege, unless the plaintiff is interdicted from the community or Church by a competent Ecclesiastical Authority. On the above belief, the plaintiff's parents have made arrangements for his marriage with Leena, who is a member of St. Mary's Church, Vithura, coming within the Kottayam Diocese. The issue of 'Vivahakuri' is a condition precedent for the conduct of betrothal and marriage ceremony and the 1^st defendant is obliged to issue 'Vivahakuri' to him. When the plaintiff's parents approached the 1^st defendant requesting to issue of the same, initially, he agreed to issue 'Vivahakuri’; but, subsequently, refused to grant the same and it is learnt that the subsequent refusal was at the instance of the 2^nd defe