J U D G M E N T

The contesting defendants in O.S.No.55 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court Court, Kuzhithurai are the appellants in this second appeal.

2.The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-

The plaintiffs are members of London Mission Congregation Church, Murampuvlai in Vellancode Village. The land was purchased for Murampuvilai London Mission Congregation Church and the church itself was constructed with the funds given by Travancore Church Council. The first defendant was appointed as pastor of the church in the year 1980. The relationship between the first defendant and the church management came under strain and he was directed to leave church premises. The first defendant unauthorizedly proposed to conduct the election. He claimed to have taken over the management also. He also executed a document gifting the suit properties in favour of the Church of South Indian Trust Association/second defendant. Seeking to nullify the said gift deed and for evicting the first defendant from the suit premises and for other reliefs, the suit was instituted.

3.The first defendant filed written statement controverting the plaint averments. He contended that the plaint church and congregation being an independent church decided to merge with CSI and also transferred the properties to CSITA. This was accepted by CSI and suit church is presently administered by C.S.I.

4.Based on the divergent pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1.Whether L.M. Congregational Church Murampuvilai has ownership over the plaint schedule property?

2.Is the impugned gift deed dated 28.05.1997 relied on by the second defendant valid and competent?

3.Are the defendants competent to deny the rights of the plaintiffs over the suit property?

4.Is the merger pleaded by the defendant tenable?

5.Are the contention of the defendant to barred by estoppel?

6.Is the suit non maintainable?

7.Relief and cost?”

5.On the side of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined and Exs.A1 to A30 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B35 were marked.

After consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 07.01.2004 partly decreed the suit holding that the gift deed dated 28.05.1997 is null and void and also directed the contesting defendants to handover possession of the suit properties to the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, the contesting defendants filed A.S.No.121 of 2004 before the District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. By the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.09.2010, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the trial Court. Challenging the same, this second appeal came to be filed.

6.The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

“1.When the title of the plaintiffs is denied by the defendants whether the suit for recovery of possession without a prayer for declaration of title is maintainable in law?

2.When all the members of LMS decided to merge in CSI and passed a resolution to convey the church building and the site to CSI, whether the dissident group formed after the conveyance could maintain a suit for recovery of possession of the suit property?

3.Whether the plaintiffs are competent to question the merger of plaint church and its members with CSI?

7.The learned counsel for the appellants reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and called upon this Court to answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellants and set aside the impugned judgment and decree and dismiss the suit in toto. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the impugned judgment and decree do not call for any interference.

8.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the evidence on record. There cannot be any dispute that the suit properties were purchased for an on behalf of London Mission Congregational Church. It has b