Back
2022 Supreme(Tri) 9
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
Arindam Lodh, J.
Thang Lunga Darlong & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
L.v. Darlong & Ors. - Respondents
RSA 9 of 2019
Decided On : 21-02-2022
P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv. and K. Nath, Advocate, for the Appellant
The authority of a registered organization under the Societies Registration Act extends throughout India, validating its ownership claims in property disputes against unregistered splinter groups.
Headnote:(A) Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Registration and jurisdiction of religious organizations - Plaintiffs sought declaration of possession and rights over church property - Defendants established legitimate ownership through registration - Courts confirmed plaintiffs' society is an unregistered splinter group - Appeal dismissed as findings of lower courts were supported by evidence. (Paras 6-10)
(B) Appeal - Substantial questions of law tied to the legitimacy of entities in religious property disputes - Courts affirmed registered organization holds authority across jurisdictions. (Paras 8-10)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs contested ownership and peaceful possession of church land; defendants proved they belong to a registered church organization and allowed joint worship. (Paras 3-4)
Findings of Court:
Lower courts and this court found plaintiffs lacked registration and failed to establish their claims, thus affirming the dismissals. (Paras 7-11)
Issues: Main issues concerned the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' claim and the operational jurisdiction of the registered church. (Paras 6-10)
Ratio Decidendi: Courts ruled that registration under the Societies Registration Act confirms jurisdiction and authority, dismissing plaintiffs' claims as they were based on an unregistered entity. (Paras 6-10)
Result: Appeal dismissed, judgments below upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs claim peaceful possession of land. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. key issues framed for court's determination. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court affirms previous judgments based on evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. registration confers operative jurisdiction across india. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. second appeal dismissed; lower judgments upheld. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, who as plaintiffs have instituted the present suit against the defendant-respondents, here-in-after referred to as the defendants. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents.
2. The plaintiffs, the appellants herein had instituted the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession of the suit land and they are only authorized to perform their religious rites and functions in the Church and also for a decree directing the defendants not to enter into the suit land or create any disturbance to the peaceful possession and religious activities of the plaintiffs.
3. The suit of the plaintiffs/appellants was contested by the defendants/ respondents by filing written statement. It is stated in the written statement that the defendants belong to Christian religion and they have to worship in the Church and the plaintiffs have no right to object, and the Church is not in the possession of the plaintiffs as the Church is open for all. It is also pleaded that in the year 1968 the said Church was registered by the Registrar of Society, Assam, Shillong on 26.03.1969 vide No. 100 of 1968-1969 and as per registration certificate name of the church is "The United Pentecostal Church of North East India" (for short, "UPCNEI") and not "United Pentecostal Church" (for short, "UPC") and after registration of the Church, the plaintiffs are no longer the office bearers of the Church and they have no locus standi to file the suit. Thus, the defendants no. 1 to 4 prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs.
4. The "United Pentecostal Church of North East India" having its registered office at Jingkieng, Shillong-14, Meghalaya, was added as one of the defendants in the suit. After considering the pleadings, following issues were framed by the learned trial court:-
"(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs' is barred by the principle of law of Section 11 of CPC?
(ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs' is also barred by the principle of law of Order VII R. 4 and Order 31 R. 1 of CPC?
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs have only been possessing the suit land and the Church standing there over?
(iv) Whether the alleged story of disturbance of possession of the plaintiffs of the suit land and the Church, by the defendants is true?
(v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get decree as prayed for?
(vi) Any other relief or reliefs?"
5. Evidences were recorded on the basis of the aforesaid issues. After completion of recording evidences, arguments were heard. Having considered the pleadings on evidence on record as well as submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the suit instituted by the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred first appeal before the District Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailasahar. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned District Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailasahar, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. Hence, this second appeal before this court preferred by the plaintiffs.
6. This court while admitting the appeal has formulated the following substantial questions of law:-
"(i) Whether the findings and decision of the learned District Judge, Kailasahar is perverse?
(ii) Whether the United Pentecostal Church of North East India, Shillong bearing registration certificate no. 100/1968, issued by the Registrar of Societies, Assam, Shillong, can have ex
