Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 2184
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S., J
REV.RAVI RAJA SELVIN – Appellant
Versus
REV.RAJAN MOSES – Respondent
RSA NO. 749 OF 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.A.K.PREETHA, SMT.REMA SMRITHY
For the Respondents: SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM, SMT.T.M.BINITHA, SMT.C.J.JINCY, SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
No substantial question of law arises where a defendant's rights over a property have been extinguished following removal from service.
Headnote:The judgment discusses the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding a suit for injunction. The court analyzed the identity of a church building and the rights of the defendants, particularly after the removal of one defendant as a Vicar. The court determined that the first defendant's rights were extinguished post-removal, leading to the decree in favor of the plaintiff. The critical issue is whether the first defendant has the right to resist the plaintiff's claims. The court held that no substantial question of law arises, resulting in the appeal's dismissal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendants' rights were extinguished upon removal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. no merit in the appeal. (Para 3) |
| 3. no substantial question of law arises. (Para 4) |
EASWARAN S., J --------------------------------------------
R.S.A No.749 of 2012 --------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2026 JUDGMENT Defendants in a suit for injunction have come up aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit contending that the first defendant was removed from service as a Vicar of the Church on 14.03.2002 and later on 01.05.2002, the plaintiff took charge as the Vicar of the Church. The first defendant disputed the identity of the building for which the church was functioning. The Advocate Commissioner, on inspection of the plaint schedule property, identified the existence of the building. Based on the Assessment Register for the periods of 1993-94 and 1997-98 produced by the Kumali Grama Panchayat, the Courts below came to the conclusion that a plaint schedule property was clearly identified. The plaintiff also contended that since the defendant was removed from the post of a Vicar, he had no right to obstruct the plaintiff on performing the duties. The 1st defendant, on the other hand, relied on Ext.B4 to resist the suit by contending that he was entitled to perform his duties as the Vicar of the church. On analysing the evidence on both sides, the court below came to conclusion that the first defendant was appointed in the plaint schedule property by the Bishop, East Kerala Diocese, Church of South India and after termination of his service, he is attempting to take possession of the church forcibly from his successor and hence, he intended to obstruct the right of the plaintiff to perform the religious duties of the church. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred A.S.No.92 of 2011 on the files of District Court, Thodupuzha, which was also dismissed by judgment dated 23.05.2012. Against the dismissal of the appeal, the present appeal is preferred.
3. Heard Smt.A.K.Preetha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Philip T.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
4. On considering the rival submissions raised across the Bar, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the appeal inasmuch as no substantial question of law arises for deciding the appeal. Admittedly, the first defendant has no right over the church. The right, if any, is extinguished because of the removal of the first defendant as the Vicar of the Church with effect from 30.04.2002 and that from the date 01.05.2002, the plaintiff had taken charge. It is not brought to the notice of this Court that under what authority, the first defendant is resisting the claim of the plaintiff. More than thirteen(13) years have passed since the present appeal is lying without admission on the files of this Court. On considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the appeal on merit. Hence, finding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this present appeal, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
