Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
W.R. Stephen L.M. Christian, Retired Teacher & Others – Appellant
Versus
Rev. R.H. Eastaff, M.A.B.D. & Other – Respondent
Appeal Suit [MD] No. 23 of 1968 & Second Appeal [MD] Nos. 731 of 1971, 592 & 593 of 1996 & CMP [MD] Nos. 8430 of 2021, 8425, 8427 of 2021, 3117 to 3119 of 2016, 9127 of 2021, 9919 to 9922 of 2018
Decided On : 22-12-2021
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - title deeds – Suit for declaration – Possession – Decreed – Second Appeal - Whether London Missionary Society [L.M.S.} was not soon after its formation, supported by a congregational one or two sent outside to Travancore by L.M.S. Congregational - Whether L.M.Churches in Travancore have not adopted from very beginning congregational forms of church Government and order and continue to maintain intact such distinctive characteristics and tradition without any alteration in fundamental for past more than 150 years - Main contention of appellants in this second appeal is that LMS has no authority to transfer ownership of properties to CSI - Also his contention that CSI has no title or management or control over the plaintiff church and they cannot claim independent right over the properties - Held, The title deeds relied upon by appellants indicate that properties have been purchased for the church by the converts of Andarkulam people. As discussed in A.S., all properties have been purchased either by contribution or by converts themselves. It is an admitted fact by both sides that all the church properties were purchased by donation or by contributions of the converts. Merely because the people living in Andarkulam had purchased the properties, it cannot be construed that the properties are that of LMS - As merger of TCC has already been decided and reached its finality, dissident group, who formed a different group as LMS congregations, who claimed majority members are aliens cannot contend that suit filed by CSI is not maintainable – This has been clearly recorded by first appellate Court in para 21 in its judgment. The subject matter of property in second appeal is also shown as item No.9 in O.S., which is the subject matter of A.S. - Therefore, either as a defendant or as a plaintiff, so called dissident group cannot take a different stand and it cannot be permissible in law - Therefore, merely after 1971, minority group appears to have taken control of church, suit filed by CSI is not barred by limitation - Court view that both second appeals S.A. have to fail and points are answered against appellants - Appeal Suit dismissed.
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 96 of Civil Procedure Code to allow this appeal and set aside the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in O.S.No.1 of 1960, dated 01.04.1967 with costs throughout.
Second Appeal filed under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.1979 made in A.S.No.104 of 1975 on the file of the II Subordinate Judge & Special Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.03.1979 made in O.S.No.654 of 1970 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.
Second Appeal filed under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.1996 made in A.S.No.162 of 1978 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagecoil confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.08.1978 in O.S.No.50 of 1971 on the file of the Sub Judge, Nagercoil.
Second Appeal filed under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.1996 made in A.S.No.171 of 1978 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.09.1978 made in O.S.No.93 of 77 on the file of the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram.)
1. Though these appeals are pending before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, the same have been listed before me as they are Specially Ordered by the Honourable Chief Justice.
2. As against the judgment passed in A.S.No.23 of 1968 and the second appeals in S.A.Nos. 731 of 1979, 592 and 593 of 1996 appeals were filed before the Apex Court in C.A.No.3293 of 1994 and the Apex Court by its Order dated 19.02.2003 has set aside the Judgments of High Court and remitted all the matters for fresh hearing. Though three different suits have been filed, the main challenge is with regard to unification of churches, i.e., merger, which is discussed as an issue in O.S.No.1 of 1960 and their consequent right over properties.
3. Though several documents have been filed before the trial Court, due to long pendency of matters for more than 6 decades and remanded by the Apex Court, the documents filed before the trial Court have been taken back by the parties themselves. After remand from the Apex Court, with great difficulty, the relevant documents relied on by both the parties alone could be reconstructed and both sides have fairly agreed to proceed with the appeals on the basis of the relevant documents they relied upon. Accordingly, these appeals have been proceeded with the documents mainly relied upon by both sides.
A.S.23 of 1968
4. The suit has been filed in a representative capacity for declaration to declare that the plaint schedule properties are Trust properties of the London Mission Church of several churches of the LMS [London Missionary Society] numbering 456 churches in Madras, Kerala State and L.M.Chirtian Community, for declaration that the plaintiffs and those who remain as London Missionary Christians are alone entitled to the beneficiary rights to the plaint properties and that those L.M.Christians who have joined the C.S.I have thereby become aliens to the L.M.Church and have forfeited all rights, into rest and benefits over the plaint properties and for recovery of the plaint properties by the plaintiffs on behalf of T.C.C. which are found in the possession of the defendants with future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum, for an injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 8, their agents, commissioned, ordained or otherwise appointed from entering upon the plaint L.M. Properties, Churches and cemeteries [scheduled and conducting divine service or officiating in any other function, for an injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 8, their agents, commissioned, ordained or otherwise appointed from alienating the plaint L.M. Properties and committing waste on the properties and for costs.
5. Brief facts of plaintiff case is follows :
5.a. The L.M.Society was found
The court affirmed that the supreme authority of a church can decide on mergers under its constitution, rejecting lower court findings that misinterpreted these powers.
High Court cannot direct civil takeover of churches in factional disputes; 1934 Constitution binds parish management; police protection for services, not possession enforcement.
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....
A deity cannot be represented in a lawsuit by worshipers without proper legal standing; only identified office bearers of a society can act on its behalf. The temple in question is a private temple b....
The representation of a collective interest in litigation ensures binding effects of decrees on all associated parties, irrespective of individual naming in the suit.
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
