Possession without legal title does not justify an injunction; parties must establish legal rights to seek such relief.

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed by the appellant – appellant – plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2005 passed in A.S.No.162 of 2003 by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2003 passed in O.S.No.1095 of 1997 by the XVII Junior Civil Judge-cum-Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court as plaintiff and defendants.

3. The plaintiff-church filed the suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment or from entering into any lease or other agreements with anybody in respect of the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties were six in number, shown as items 1 to 6. As per the averments of the plaint, the plaintiff-church was established in the year 1852 to serve the religious needs of the Tamil population staying at Secunderabad and the surrounding areas. Due to historical and political reasons, several Tamil speaking people settled in Secunderabad area serving the Nizam and the British Governments. Since most of them had taken the faith of Lord Jesus, they were in search of a Tamil Pastorate. With the great efforts of Evangelist Rev. Paranjyothi, the plaintiff church was established in the year 1852. During the said period, the entire administration of the church was centralized under Diocese of Madras. The plaintiff church was also taking evangelical help from Madras. In the year 1947, the Church of South India, was established and in order to administer the properties of the church, the Church of South India and the Church of South India Trust Association were formed. The plaintiff church was attached to Anglican Church at Madras. Under the Indian Church Act , 1927, in the year 1947, some of the churches under the control of various missions were transferred to defendant No.1 Church of South India. The plaintiff church did not figure in the said list. However, the plaintiff church continued to maintain episcopal relations with the defendant No.1. The plaintiff church was also having clergical relations with the Church of South India (defendant No.1). Later, when the diocese at Medak was established in the year 1947, the authorities of Church of South India at Madras advised the plaintiff church to maintain relations with the Diocese at Medak i.e., defendant No.3. Since then, the plaintiff church was maintaining relationship with the defendant No.3 for all episcopal purposes. The relationship of the plaintiff church with the defendant No.3 was only that of fraternal nature.

3.1. Since the plaintiff church was established in order to serve the spiritual needs of the Tamil speaking people, there was a need to have Tamil priest so that he could conduct the service in their own mother tongue. From the inception of the church, Tamil speaking priests were only being appointed. Earlier, the authorities stationed at Madras were recommending the names. But later, the plaintiff church in its absolute discretion was appointing Tamil priests from time to time without the recommendation or reference to Diocese defendant No.3. The appointment, payment of salary control and also administration of the presbyterian matters were in the hands of the plaintiff church only. There was no administrative control by defendants 1 to 3 over the plaintiff church. Soon after the church was established in the year 1852, there was an attempt from the