2021 Supreme(Mad) 764

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (T.E.L.C.), Rep. by its Secretary A. Mehar Antony, & Another – Appellant
Versus
Rt. Rev. D. Daniel Jayaraj & Others – Respondent
A.S. (MD) No.18 of 2021 & C.M.P. (MD) Nos. 655 to 659, 1926, 1927, 1929 and 2218 of 2021
Decided On : 19-03-2021

Point of law: the cases filed before the elections and after the elections. Almost 26 cases have been filed at the relevant point of time in 19 Courts, besides, various other interim orders have also been obtained. The nature of litigations and waste of judicial time taken in this case cannot be ignored altogether. One thing is clear that all the litigations is with regard to the Church properties.

Headnote:

Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1, Order 7 Rule 11, Order 1 Rule 8 – Church Rules, 1991 – Rules 161, 194 – Cause of action – Suit for Declaration – Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed in I.A. in O.S. by the learned I Additional District Judge (PCR), rejecting the plaint – Aggrieved over the rejection of the plaint filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that there is no cause of action and the action taken under Church Council Rules, cannot be questioned, the present appeal has been filed. – First defendant is the Bishop and sued in the present litigation in his individual capacity. – It is the case of the plaintiff that the first plaintiff is the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (for the sake of brevity hereinafter it shall be referred as TELC), which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. – With regard to the dispute arose between the then Bishop /President of TELC and the Church Council, several cases were filed. – The Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed Mr.Justice K.Venkatraman, Rtrd., as Judge Administrator to administer TELC and to conduct the election of the members of the Church Council for the triennium 2019-2022. – Accordingly, the Administrator conducted the elections and the first defendant was elected as a Bishop of Tranquebar for TELC. – The plaintiffs 2 to 4 and the defendants 2 and 3 were elected as a Members of the Church council for the triennium 2019-22 in election held and installed – The third plaintiff has been elected as Secretary of the Church Council for the said triennium and the same was recorded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order in S.L.P.

Finding of court: When the action was taken as per the Rules after affording an opportunity to the members, the Court will not sit in an appeal over such decision of the Committee. – However, such action or decision, prima facie, appears to be malice and for personal gain, it cannot be stated that the civil Court has no right to go into the decision. Ouster of the civil Court jurisdiction cannot be inferred slightly unless the jurisdiction is specifically excluded. – Even the perusal of the entire Rules, it is made clear that there is no rule for exclusion of the civil Court and the right of the parties to continue as Office Bearers is legal right and such right is infringed. – Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents cannot be countenanced. – Though it is beyond the scope of this lis, this Court is constrained to express its displeasure over the nature of the litigation and cases filed challenging the elections, which were conducted under the supervision of the Courts including the Hon'ble Apex Court. – A classic example, as to how the litigation is taken advantage to use the powers and squat over the property of the Church and squander its wealth, is the judgment reported Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin vs. The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church and others [2011 (1) CTC 395], wherein this Court has tabulated the cases filed before the elections and after the elections. Almost 26 cases have been filed at the relevant point of time in 19 Courts, besides, various other interim orders have also been obtained. – The nature of litigations and waste of judicial time taken in this case cannot be ignored altogether. One thing is clear that all the litigations is with regard to the Church properties. – Court is of the view that to protect the valuable properties and wealth of the Church, it is a high time for persons who are in helm of affairs to ponder over to protect the property of the Churches.

Result: Appeal Suit Allowed