The appeal was dismissed as no substantial questions of law arose, reaffirming the validity of injunction against the defendant's interference with church administration under a prior constitutional framework.

JUDGMENT

The defendant in a suit, O.S. No.851 of 2017, for permanent prohibitory injunction nonsuited concurrently, has come up in the present appeal.

2. The parishioners of St. Mary’s Church (Cathedral), Manarcadu, Kottayam, St. Thomas Orthodox Church, Meenadom, Baselellus Mar Gregorious Orthodox Church, Thazhathangadi, St. George’s Orthodox Church, Valiapalli, Puthuppally and St. George’s Orthodox Church, Parampuzha had approached the Principal Munsiff Court, Kottayam, contending that they are the constituent Churches of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church coming under the Kottayam Diocese and are governed by the 1934 Constitution of Malankara Church, which was framed on 29.12.1934. According to them, there are one hundred and twenty-two (122) churches under the Kottayam Diocese of Malankara Church and are governed by the said constitution. The defendant, who claims to be the Metropolitan of the Yacobaya Suriyani Christiani Sabha, formed in the year 2002 and governed by a Constitution called the 2002 Constitution, claimed to be appointed under that Constitution. The attempt of the defendant is to set up a parallel administration in the scheduled churches, while he continued as the Metropolitan of the Yacobaya Suriyani Christiani Sabha, which is governed by the 2002 Constitution. It is further contended that there were many factions which had raised several disputes regarding the working of the various churches under the 1934 Constitution. The disputes were ultimately settled by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Varghese K.S. and Others v. St. Peter’s & Paul’s Syrian Orthodox and Others [2017 KHC 6531] , wherein it was specifically held that the person who claims allegiance to the 2002 Constitution is not entitled to interfere with the spiritual and temporal administration of the churches governed under the 1934 Constitution. Since the defendant was not appointed under the 1934 Constitution, he has no right to conduct any religious services in the church. But the defendant was attempting to trespass into the scheduled churches and implement a parallel system of administration to the churches, claiming that he is the Metropolitan and has authority. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the Munsiff Court, Kottayam, lacks territorial jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of the suit and that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The managing committee of the Malankara Syrian Christian Association has no right or power or authority to pass any resolution of the like nature. The resolution produced by the plaintiffs was also questioned. It was further contended that the meeting of the Malankara Association held on 20.3.2002 is not correct and the Managing Committee selected on 20.3.2002 is invalid and not binding upon the Syrian Jacobite Church. The defendant, being the Metropolitan of the Kottayam Diocese of Patriarch faction got every right to serve members of the committee and fulfil their spiritual needs. The Munsiff Court framed a point for consideration that, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S. Varghese (Supra), whether the subject matter of the suit is covered by the decision. Exts.A1 to A6 documents were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs, and no documents were produced on the side of the defendant. No oral evidence was adduced by both parties. The trial court, on appreciation of the documentary evidence and also the decision of the Supreme Court, came to the conclusion that the matter in question is strictly covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S. Varghese (Supra), and resultantly, based on the findings rendered by the Supreme Court in paragraph No.184 of the judgment, decreed the suit and restrained the defendants