Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUBBIAH, J.
N.P. Thangaraj & Another
Versus
Church of South India represented by its Moderator & Others
Application No. 3014 & 3015 of 2013
Decided on: 21-01-2014
The court granted leave to file a suit against the Chairman of a public religious charitable trust for removal from his post on the allegation of misappropriation of funds. The court held that the suit was maintainable under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as the allegations made in the plaint were sufficient to bring the suit within the ambit of the section. The court also held that the prayers made in the plaint were in conformity with Section 92 of CPC and that the application under Order I Rule 8 of CPC should be dealt with by the Master.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, members of the Church of South India (CSI), filed a suit for the removal of the Chairman of the CSI Trust Association and to appoint a new Chairman. They also sought a declaration that a certain rule of the CSI Constitution was illegal and unconstitutional. The respondents, the Chairman and the CSI Trust Association, filed counter affidavits opposing the applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was maintainable under Section 92 of CPC as the allegations made in the plaint were sufficient to bring the suit within the ambit of the section. The court also held that the prayers made in the plaint were in conformity with Section 92 of CPC and that the application under Order I Rule 8 of CPC should be dealt with by the Master.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable under Section 92 of CPC? 2. Whether the prayers made in the plaint were in conformity with Section 92 of CPC? 3. Whether the application under Order I Rule 8 of CPC should be dealt with by the Master?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was maintainable under Section 92 of CPC as the allegations made in the plaint were sufficient to bring the suit within the ambit of the section. The court relied on the judgment in Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati and another vs. Ramji Tripathi and another, wherein it was held that the allegations in the plaint should be looked into in the first instance to see whether the suit falls within the ambit of Section 92. 2. The court held that the prayers made in the plaint were in conformity with Section 92 of CPC. The court held that the prayers for removal of the Chairman, appointment of a new Chairman, and declaration that a certain rule of the CSI Constitution was illegal and unconstitutional were all within the scope of Section 92 of CPC. 3. The court held that the application under Order I Rule 8 of CPC should be dealt with by the Master. The court relied on the judgment in D.Gopalan Vs. Raghava Naicker & others, wherein it was held that such applications should be dealt with by the Master under Order XIV Rule 10(xiv) of the Original Side Rules.
Final Decision: The court granted leave to file the suit against the Chairman of the CSI Trust Association for removal from his post on the allegation of misappropriation of funds. The court also directed that the application under Order I Rule 8 of CPC be posted before the Master.
R. Subbiah, J.,
1. Application No.3014 of 2013 has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Order I Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code to permit the applicants to file the suit on their behalf and on behalf of the members of Church of South India and to sue the first defendant - Church of South India represented by its Moderator in representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code.
2. Application No.3015 of 2013 has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code to grant leave to the applicants to file the above suit against the second defendant - Church of South India Trust Association.
3. The applicants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The applicants/plaintiffs have filed the suit for the following reliefs:-
(a) for declaration to declare that Rule 3 Chapter XI of the Constitution of first defendant - Church of South India that “All members of the Church hereby agree that they shall first exhaust all provisions available in this Constitution for the enforcement of their rights under this Constitution and for redressal of their grievances, before they seek legal remedy in a Court of law and members who violate this rule shall ipso facto lose their right to participate in the Government of the Church at all levels” is illegal and unconstitutional.
(b) for declaration to declare that the third defendant cannot hold the post of Chairman of second defendant - Church of South India Trust Association and consequently to remove the third defendant from the post of Chairman of second defendant Church of South India Trust Association.
(c) for declaration to declare that the third defendant cannot hold the post of Moderator of Church of South India and consequently to remove the third defendant from the post of Moderator of Church of South India.
(d) for declaration to declare that the third defendant cannot hold the post of Bishop of fifth defendant CSI Kanyakumari Diocese and consequently, to remove the third defendant from the post of Bishop of CSI Kanyakumari Diocese.
(e) to appoint the fourth defendant as Moderator of Church of South India; Chairman of second defendant- Church of South India Trust Association and Bishop-in-charge of fifth defendant- CSI Kanyakumari Diocese; or in the alternative to appoint a senior most serving Bishop of Church of South India as Moderator of Church of South India; Chairman of second defendant Church of South India Trust Association and Bishop-in-charge of fifth defendant - CSI Kanyakumari Diocese;
(f) for permanent injunction restraining the third defendant from functioning as Moderator of first defendant Church of South India, Chairman of second defendant Church of South India Trust Association and Bishop of fifth defendant - CSI Kanyakumari Diocese;
4. These two applications have been filed by the applicants in the representative capacity. In both the applications, this Court has ordered notice.
5. On appearance, the respondents have filed their counter affidavits opposing the applications.
6. Before dealing with the applications, it would be appropriate to extract the averments made in the plaint. The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-
6(1) The first applicant/first plaintiff is a baptised, confirmed, communicant, worshiping, subscribing and voting member of CSI Padanthalumudu Church, Kaliayakavilai Pastorate in CSI Kanyakumari Diocese. The first applicant is also the Secretary of CSI Padanthalumudu Church of CSI Kanyakumari Diocese. The applicant is also a member of CSI Kanaykumari Diocesan Council representing CSI Padanthalumudu Church and an elected member of CSI Kanyakumari Diocese Executive Committee.
6(2) The second applicant/second plaintiff is a baptised, confirmed, communicant, subscribing, worshiping and voting member of CSI Good Shepherd Church in Ananthan Nagar Pastorate in CSI Kanyakumari Diocese. The 2nd applicant is also the Secretary
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
