JUDGMENT

A novel but certainly enterprising contention as regards what is now famously known as the ‘Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Cases’, is urged in these appeals.

2. The appellants herein predicate that the suit, from which these appeals arise, is not maintainable since the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, barricades its considerations on merits.

3. I have remarked above that this contention is enterprising since this does not appear to have been urged earlier, even when several of the litigations relating to the other constituent churches under the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Sabha have reached all the way up to the Honourable Supreme Court leading to two seminal judgments being delivered, to which I will advert presently, after indicating the most necessary facts.

4. These appeals have been considered together since they have been filed against the same judgment and decree issued by the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam in O.S.No.6/2013.

5. While RFA No.10/2020 has been filed by the defendant No.11 in the suit; RFA No.17/2020 has been filed by defendants 6 and

8.

6. Prefatorily speaking, the issues involved in these cases relate to the man