Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 869
High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : O.S.A. Nos. 14 & 15 of 2021 & C.M.P. Nos. 290 & 292 of 2021
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH & THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N. MANJULA
Parties : P. Samuel Sundar Kumar & Another Versus Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints, Rep. by its President Prince Daniel
Date of Judgment : 27-04-2021
Point of Law: In order to get a relief of injunction, it is sufficient for plaintiff to make out a prima facie case and prove that there is balance of convenience in his favour and denying relief would cause irreparable loss. Respondent/plaintiff had successfully proved these elements before the Court.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Civil Suit - Suit for declaration and recovery of possession of suit property - Plaintiff is a Global Organization who has its International Head Quarters in Missouri, USA and it is a registered society - Suit has been filed by plaintiff society for relief of declaration and recovery of possession of suit property and also for relief of permanent injunction for restraining defendants from trespassing into suit property - Plaintiff has also filed a petition for ad interim injunction against defendants for restraining them from interfering or disturbing worship and other activities of plaintiff’s Church and injunction was also granted - First Appellant/first Defendant has filed an application - alleged first Appellant was former President and during his tenure, he mismanaged assets and affairs of society and enriched himself and that he also inducted his wife, son-in-law and his daughter into the helms of Church
Finding of the court: Respondent has given an assurance during course of his arguments possession of first Appellant in house situated in suit property will not be disturbed until disposal of suit, even though affairs of the Church is carried out to his exclusion - Suit property are situated as distinct and separate portions - Order of interim injunction can only help to maintain peace and harmony - Judge has rightly thought it fit to grant an order of interim injunction for the peaceful worship and prayers carried out in Church, until the larger issues are decided through an exhaustive trial Appeals are dismissed
Result: Original Side Appeals are dismissed
Judgment :-
(Common Prayer: These Original Side Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules r/w Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the common order and decree dated 10.11.2020 passed in O.A.No.151 of 2020 & A.No.1350 of 2020 in C.S.No.56 of 2020 by this Hon’ble High Court.)
Common Judgment
R.N. Manjula, J.
1. These Original Side Appeals have been filed against the common order passed in O.A.No.151 of 2020 & A.No.1350 of 2020 in C.S.No.56 of 2020 on 10.11.2020.
2. The Appellants are the Defendants and the Respondent is the Plaintiff in the suit.
3. The plaintiff is a Global Organization who has its International Head Quarters in Missouri, USA and it is a registered society. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff society for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property and also for the relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit property. Subsequently, the plaintiff has also filed a petition for ad interim injunction against the defendants for restraining them from interfering or disturbing the worship and other activities of plaintiff’s Church and the injunction was also granted. The first Appellant/first Defendant has filed an application in A.No.1350 of 2020 for vacating the same. By a common order dated 10.11.2020, the learned Single Judge allowed the injunction petition and dismissed the Application to vacate the injunction by making the following observations:-
10. It is also seen that in the year 2013, a complaint was lodged by the plaintiff society dated 28.03.2013 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Triplicane Range, informing the Police about the 1st defendant forcibly throwing out the Pastor from the property belonging to the society. It is therefore seen that the 1st defendant have been intermittently interfering in the functioning of the Church belonging to the plaintiff society.
11. The Mission at United States had appointed Mr.Issac Bennet Joshua Prince Daniel as the Pastor of the Church belonging to the plaintiff society vide order dated 19.02.2020. The complaint has been given by the Pastor alleging interference in the conduct of the Church. The suit relates to the property in which the Church is situate and the relief is one for declaration and recovery of possession. It is pending this suit that the defendants have attempted to obstruct the functioning of the Church and the same has been restored after the Police had been called in. Therefore, it cannot be said that the relief claimed in the interlocutory application is outside the scope of the main relief.
12. The plaintiff society has been constrained to move this application since the defendants are at regular intervals obstructing the functioning of the Church. The complaint lodged by the daughter of the 1st defendant to the Police on 22.02.2020 would also give indication that the defendants are stacking a claim for conducting mass and other religious gatherings in the Church and it is for this reason that the defendants have frequently disturbed the plaintiff. The Church is being run by the Pastor who is a different person and not the Mission President, whose authority the defendants question. It is the case of the defendants that he had been removed in the year 2010 itself. However, the Pastor in question is appointed by the Mission headquarters in United States on 19.02.2020. This fact has not been denied any where by the defendants. The Police complaint has also been given only by this Pastor.
13. Considering the fact that there has been an interference in offering worship at the Church and also taking into account the stand taken by the 1st defendant’s daughter in her police complaint which is contrary to the contention of the 1st defendant that he does not intend to interfere with the worship at the Church it would be in the interest of Justice that the defendants are injuncted from in any manner interfering with plaintiff society’s right to hold prayers an
