MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Church and Cemetery can't be Confiscated by Anybody

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019/22ND PHALGUNA, 1940
W.P(C).No.33282 OF 2018

PETITIONERS:
ST.MARYS ORTHODOX CHURCH (KATTACHIRA PALLI), KATTACHIRA, BHARANIKKAVU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT – 690 502, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR REV. FR. JOHNS EAPEN.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR) BY ADV. SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER

RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO STATE OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.
2 THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001.
3 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001.
4 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001.
5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA – 688001.
6 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ALAPPUZHA – 688001.
7 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR – 689121.
8 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR – 689121.
9 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA – 690101.
10 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURATHIKKAD – 690103.
11 MATHEWS MAR THEVODOSIOS, MICHAEL DAYARA, ADOOR – 691523.
12 FR. GEORGE JOHN, DIOCESE SECRETARY, KALEECKAL, MANJADITHARA P.O., PALLICKAL, KOLLAM – 691506.
13 FR. ROY GEORGE, EDEN’S VILLA, PULLICKANACKU P.O., MANKUZHY – 690537.
14 ALEX M. GEORGE, MUNJINATTU HOUSE, KATTACHIRA – 686572.
15 MATHEW PHILIP, KOCHUTHARAYIL, KATTACHIRA – 686572.
16 S. GEORGEKUTTY, VATTAPARAMBIL PADEETHATHIL, KATTACHIRA – 686572.
17 ANIYAN, PARAMBILPEEDIKAYIL, KUTTAMPEDATHUKARA, KATTACHIRA – 686572.
R1 TO R10 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY R11 TO R12 BY ADV.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) R14 BY ADV.SRI.P.J.PHILIP R13, R15, R16 AND R17 BY ADV.SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR BY ADV.SRI.MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA BY ADV.SMT.SHEENAMOL VARGHESE BY ADV.SMT.SMITHA GEORGE BY ADV.SRI.P.BIJIMON BY ADV.SRI.P.P.KURIEN
W.P(C).No.16248 OF 2018

PETITIONERS: 1 ST. MARY’S ORTHODOX CHURCH, VARIKOLI, VARIKOLI.P.O,PUTHENCRUZE, REP.BY ITS VICAR FR.VIJU ELIAS.
PIN:682308.
2 FR.VIJU EALIAS S/O.EALIAS, AGED 36 YEARS, VICAR ST.MARY’S ORTHODOX CHURCH, VARIKOLI,VARIKOLI.P.O, PUTHENCRUZE,PIN-682308.
3 M.C.THOMAS S/O CHACKO, AGED 61 YEARS, PALAKKATTU MALAL,MATTAKKUZHI(TRUSTEE), ST.MARY’S ORTHODOX CHURCH,VARIKOLI.
4 V.V.JOSEPH S/O VARKEY,AGED 52 YEARS, VAYAMBUKANDATHIL, VARIKOLI.P.O., PUTHENCRUZE(TRUSTEE), ST.MARY’S ORTHODOX CHURCH, VARIKOLI.
BY ADV.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) BY ADV.SRI.MANJUNATH MENON BY ADV.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE BY ADV.SRI.P.PRIJITH BY ADV.SRI.R.GITHESH BY ADV.SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
2 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ERNAKULAM RANGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682011.
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF ERNAKULAM RURAL,ALUVA,PIN-683101.
4 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MUVATTUPUZHA,PIN-686661.
5 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (SHO) CIRCLE OFFICE,PUTHENCRUZ,PIN:682308.
6 FR.BAIJU KUREEKUNNEL S/O MARKOSE,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, KUREEKKUNNEL HOUSE,KARIKKODU.P.O,PIN-686610,PERUVA.
7 AJOSH GEORGE S/O P.A.GEORGE,AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PADIYIL HOUSE, MATTAKUZHIKARA, VARKORI.P.O, PUTHENCRUZ,PIN-682308.
8 E.P.GEORGE S/O PAILY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, EDASSERY HOUSE,VARIKOLI.P.O, PUTHENCRUZE,PIN-682308.
9 SAJI K.JOSEPH S/O JOSEPH,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, KARAKKATTU HOUSE,VARIKOLI.P.O,PUTHENCRUZ,PIN-682308.
10 ALLEN PAUL S/O E.A.PAULOSE,AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,ECHIKKOOTTIL HOUSE,MATTAKKUZHI,VARIKOLI.P.O,PUTHENCRUZ,PIN-682308.
11 V.V.MATHAI S/O.VARKEY,AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,VELLOOR,PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,CHOONDI,VADAYAMPADI.P.O,AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE,PIN-682308.
12 MR.E.A.PAULOSE ECHIKKOOTTIL HOUSE,MATTAKKUZHI,VARIKOLI.P.O,PIN-682308.
R1 TO R5 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY R6 TO R12 BY ADV.SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS BY ADV.SMT.P.ANITHA BY ADV.SRI.P.R.VENKETESH BY ADV.SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ
W.P(C).No.40172 OF 2018

PETITIONERS:
1 MATHAI ULAHANNAN AGED 72 YEARS S/O. ULAHANNAN, MANAPPATTU HOUSE, KAKKAD KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 686 664
2 MATHAI THOMMEN, AGED 76 YEARS S/O. THOMMMAN, THEKKUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 664
BY ADV.SRI.V.V.ASOKAN (SR.) BY ADV.SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER BY ADV.SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA

RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695014
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU 682 030
4 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM 682 031
5 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF ERNAKULAM RURAL, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ALUVA 683 101
8 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PIRAVOM, POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM 686 664
9 FR. SKARIAH VATTAKATTIL, S/O. MATHEW, VATTAKATTIL HOUSE, PIRVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 664
10 SHRI.K.P.JOHN, S/O.PAILY, KADALIKKATTIL MOOLAKUNNEL, PIRAVOM VILLAGE AND POST, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 664
11 FR. MATHEW VATHAKATTIL, S/O. V.M. ABRAHAM, PAZHOOR, PIRAVOM VILLAGE AND POST, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 664
12 FR. MATHEWS KANJIRAMPARA, S/O.YOHANNAN, KANJIRAMPARA HOUSE, PERUMPILLY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY 682 314
13 FR. ELIAS CHERUKATTU, S/O. C.V. JACOB, EZHAKARANAD P.O., MANEED VILLAGE, PUTHENCRUZ 682 308
14 U.P. JOHN, S/O. PAILY, URAKKATIL, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM 686 664
15 M.P. BABU, S/O. PAULOSE, MANKIDIYIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM, VILLAGE & POST, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM 686 664
R1 TO R8 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY R9 TO R15 BY ADV.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)

J U D G M E N T

These collection of command petitions offer as a grave sign of a incessant quarrel for control of devout and temporal organisation of affairs of a Parish Church between a Patriarch coterie and a Catholicos coterie of a Malankara Church. The Malankara Church is radically a multiplication of a Orthodox Syrian Church and a emanate of devout and temporal supervision between a Malankara Church and a Patriarch of Antioch has been a theme matter of several rounds of lawsuit given a year 1879.

2. The story of a progressing rounds of lawsuit has been succinctly referred to in a visualisation of Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and Others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another [1995 Supp (4) SCC 286] as follows:
“ xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

98. St.Thomas, one of a disciples of Jesus Christ came to Malabar in 52 A.D. to widespread his message. He died in India.

99. At a Council reason during Nicea in 325 A.D. – First General Council – convened by a Roman Emperor Constantine, 4 Patriarchates were determined travelling a pope as it was famous then, viz., Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, any headed by a Patriarch. Within a bureau of Patriarch of Antioch was determined another office, viz., a good Metropolitan of a East, also famous as “Catholicos”. The bureau of Catholicate fell into neglect after and was regenerated in 628 A.D. Sometime later, it again fell into disuse. All these are matters of faith and are staid merely by proceed of introduction.

100. By a 16th century, Christianity had gained a sincerely estimable foothold in a area now comprised in Kerala. The widespread faith was of a Syrian Orthodox Church. 16th century saw a arise of Portuguese domestic energy on a west Coast of India. The Portugese were Roman Catholics. They compelled a inner christians to accept Roman Catholic faith. They succeeded to some border yet not for long. In a year 1654, a Christians of Malabar rebelled opposite a deception of an visitor faith and available their faithfulness to Syrian Orthodox Church headed by a Patriarch by holding an promise en masse during Mattancherry, famous as a “Koonan Cross Oath”. Since afterwards a Patriarch of Antioch was sportive ecclesiastical leverage over what competence be called a “Malankara Syrian Christian Church”. With a arise of a British energy in a Southern India during a 19th century, they in spin pressurised a Malankara Syrian Christian Community to welcome a Protestant faith. They too succeeded in some measure. Disputes arose between a dual groups (one that embraced a Protestant faith and a other adhering to a Orthodox faith), that was staid by an endowment called “Cochin Award” rendered on Apr 4, 1840. As per this award, a Church properties were divided between a Church Mission Society (Protestants) and a Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church (Orthodox faith). The volume of 3,000 Star Pagodas deposited by Mar Thoma VI (Dionysius a Great) with a East Indian Company during 8 percent seductiveness came to be allotted to Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church in this division.

101. On comment of certain disputes and bickerings between a members of Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church, Patriarch Peter III of Antioch came to Malabar in 1876. He called a assembly of a accredited member of all Churches in Malabar that is famous as a “Mulanthuruthy Synod”. At this Synod, Malankara Syrian Christian Association, popularly called a “Malankara Association”, was shaped to control a affairs of a Church and a Community. The Malankara Metropolitan was finished a ex-officio President of this Association. Each member Church was to send 3 member to a Association. A Managing Committee of twenty four, called a “Standing operative Committee of a Association” was also constituted. Until 1876, a whole Malabar was comprised in one Diocese. But afterward it was divided into 7 Dioceses, any Diocese headed by a Metropolitan. One of them was to be designated as Malankara Metropolitan who exercised devout and temporal powers over all a Dioceses.

Seminary Suit

102. On 4-7-1879 Mar Joseph Dionysius claiming to be a scrupulously hallowed Metropolitan of Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church and as a President of Malankara Association filed O.S.No.439 of 1054 in a Zilla Court of Alleppey opposite one Mar Thomas Athanasius. The categorical brawl between them was while a plaintiff asserted a leverage of Patriarch comprised in consecrating and appointing Metropolitans from time to time to oversee and sequence over a Malankara Edavagai, in promulgation Morone (the hallowed oil) for baptismal purposes, in receiving a Ressissa (tribute) from a Community to say his grace and in generally determining a ecclesiastical and temporal affairs of a Edavagai, a defendants denied any such Patriarchal supremacy. The fit was eventually likely of by a visualisation of Travancore Royal Court of Final Appeal in a year 1889. The Royal Court found that a ecclesiastical leverage of a Patriarch of Antioch over Malankara Syrian Christian Church in Travancore had all along been famous and concurred by Jacobite Syrian Christian Community and their Metropolitans; that a practice of autarchic energy consisted in ordaining, possibly directly or by a duly certified delegates, Metropolitans from time to time to control a devout matters of a inner Church, in promulgation Morone to be used in a Churches for baptismal and other functions and in ubiquitous organisation over a devout organisation of a Church. The Royal Court serve ruled that a supervision of Patriarch never extended to temporal affairs of a Church that in that seductiveness was an eccentric Church. It was serve announced that a Metropolitan of a Syrian Christian Church in Travancore should be a inner of Malabar hallowed by a Patriarch or by his duly certified nominee and supposed by a people as their Metropolitan. The Court found that a plaintiff was so hallowed by Patriarch and supposed by a infancy of a people and, therefore, entitled to be famous and announced as a Malankara Metropolitan and as a keeper of a Church properties.

Arthat Suit
103. It appears that a Patriarch of Antioch did not penchant a visualisation of a Royal Court of Travancore insofar as it announced that he had no control over a temporal affairs of a Malankara Church. Some inner Christians inspected him in that seductiveness that led to a establishment of a fit in 1877 that resulted in a visualisation of a Court of Appeal of Cochin antiquated 15-8-1905, re-affirming a commentary of a Travancore Royal Court. The Cochin Court of Appeal announced that while a Patriarch of Antioch is a devout control of Malankara Syrian Jacobite Christian Church, a Churches and their properties are theme to a spiritual, temporal and ecclesiastical bureau of a Malankara Metropolitan. In other words, a Patriarch’s explain of control over a temporal affairs of a Malankara Church was negatived once again.
The Revival of Catholicate in 1912

104. The Sultan of Turkey withdrew a capitulation given to Abdul Messiah as a Patriarch of Antioch and famous Abdulla II as a Patriarch. There is a disproportion of opinion as to a outcome of this withdrawal of capitulation by a Sultan. While one perspective is that this capitulation resulted in Abdul Messiah ceasing to practice any and all a powers of Patriarch, a other perspective is that a conspicuous withdrawal did not impact a devout supervision of Abdul Messiah. Be that as it may, there were now dual opposition claimants to a Patriarchate of Antioch and as we shall currently prove it is this brawl between Abdul Messiah and Abdulla II that led to a arrangement of dual groups in a Malankara Church.

105. In a year 1907, Mar Geevarghese Dionysius was hallowed as Metropolitan by a Patriarch Abdulla II during Jerusalam. In 1909, Mar Geevarghese Dionysius became a Malankara Metropolitan on a genocide of Mar Joseph Dionysius. Because of certain differences outset between Mar Geevarghese Dionysius and Abdulla II, a latter ex- communicated a former on 31-3-1911. A few months later, Abdulla II allocated one Paulose Mar Kurilos as a Malankara Metropolitan. Mar Geevarghese Dionysius responded by convening a assembly of a Malankara Syrian Christian Jacobite Church that announced his proscription as invalid. In a year 1912, Patriarch Abdul Messiah came to Malankara and announced a proscription of Mar Geevarghese Dionysius by Abdulla II as invalid. In serve to that, Abdul Messiah also supposed to revitalise and reestablish a Catholicate by consecrating one Mar Ivanios as a Catholicos.
xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

109. Mar Ivanios, who was hallowed as a Catholicos, died on 16-4-1913. Abdul Messiah died on 30-08-1915 and Abdulla II died on 25- 11-1915. No one was commissioned as a Catholicos compartment 1925, when one Mar Geevarghese Philixinos of Vakathanam was commissioned as a second Catholicos yet though anxiety to a Patriarch. On a genocide of Mar Philixinos on 17-12-1928, Geevarghese Gregorius was commissioned as a third Catholicos, again yet anxiety to a Patriarch.
Vattipanam Suit

110. Dispute arose as to a persons entitled to a seductiveness on 3,000 Star Pagodas aforementioned. In perspective of a dispute, a Secretary of State for India instituted an interpleader Suit O.S.No.94 of 1088 in a District Court, Trivandrum. It was after converted into a deputy fit between dual groups, viz., defendants 1 to 3 representing what competence be called a Catholicos organisation (i.e., a organisation overdue devotion to a Catholicos commissioned by Patriarch Abdul Messiah) and defendants 4 to 6 representing what competence be called a Patriarch organisation (i.e., a organisation overdue devotion usually to a Patriarch). The initial suspect claimed to have been allocated as Malankara Metropolitan by Abdul Messiah and doubtful a outcome of a Bull of proscription released by Abdulla II. On a other hand, defendants 4 to 6 claimed that a initial suspect carrying been ex-communicated by a Patriarch Abdulla II, ceased to be a Malankara Metropolitan and that a fourth suspect has been validly allocated by Abdulla II as a Malankara Metropolitan in a place of a initial defendant. Defendants 4 to 6 serve contended that by their control and declarations, defendants 1 to 3 have turn schismatics and hence unfit to act as a curators of a Church properties. The fourth suspect died tentative a fit and in his place suspect No.42 was impleaded as a Malankara Metropolitan. The schooled District Judge reason inter alia that a initial suspect is a validly allocated Malankara Metropolitan, carrying been supposed by a village during a designation assembly reason in a year 1084. He also reason that a withdrawal of capitulation by a Sultan of Turkey did not dispossess Abdul Messiah of his quite devout functions and powers and that a ex-communication of a initial suspect by Abdulla II was invalid. With these findings, a schooled District Judge inspected a explain of defendants 1 to 3 to a seductiveness amount.

READ  Whether the court can reject a closure report filed by the police on the ground that complainant was not satisfied?

111. The Patriarch organisation filed an seductiveness before a High Court of Travancore (reported in 41 T.L.R.1). A Full Bench of a High Court certified a seductiveness and topsy-turvy a visualisation and direct of a Trial Court and inspected a explain of defendants 4 to 6 as a loyal and current curators entitled to a conspicuous seductiveness amount. Thereupon Defendants 1 to 3 practical for examination of a conspicuous judgment. The examination petition was certified theme to a condition that a reciew petitioners shall not doubt a following 3 commentary accessible in a visualisation underneath examination – a 3 commentary being –
“(1) as to a flawlessness of Ex. A-18, a chronicle of Canon Law constructed by defendants 5, 6 and 42.
(2) as to a energy of Patriarch to ex-communicate yet a involvement of a Synod; and
(3) as to a deficiency of an surreptitious ground on a partial of a Patriarch that prompted him to practice his energy of ex-communication.”
Accordingly, a seductiveness was re-heard by another Full Bench that by a visualisation conspicuous on 4-7-1928 inspected a preference of a schooled District Judge and reliable his decree.
xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Developments successive to a final ordering of a Vattipanam Suit

112. After a aforesaid judgment, it appears, both a parties attempted to strengthen their sold positions. On 16-8-1928 a Managing Committee of a Malankara Association was shaped that was certified to pull a structure for a Church and a Association. On a really subsequent day, i.e., 17-8-1928, Mar Julius Elias, a nominee of a Patriarch who was afterwards in Malabar, released an sequence job on Mar Geevarghese Dionysius to govern an Udampadi (submission deed) within dual days allowance a supervision of a Patriarch and also suspending him for carrying committed several grave offences opposite a Holy Throne of Antioch and for carrying repudiated a supervision of a statute Patriarch. He addressed letters to a Governments of Travancore and Madras to secrete remuneration of seductiveness to Mar Geevarghese Dionysius in perspective of his cessation from a bureau of Malankara Metropolitan.

113. On 21-8-1928, O.S.No.2 of 1104 was filed in a District Court of Kottayam by eighteen persons belonging to Patriarch organisation opposite Mar Geevarghese Dionysius and dual others including a afterwards Catholicos Mar Geevarghese Philixinos. Mar Geevarghese Philixinos died in 1929. Thereupon Moran Mar Basselios was impleaded as a defendant. On 23-1- 1931, O.S.No.2 of 1104 was discharged for non- correspondence with certain orders per remuneration of monies to a Commissioner allocated in a suit. The focus for replacement of a fit was discharged on 29-9- 1931, opposite that sequence a plaintiffs therein filed Civil Misc. Appeal No.74 of 1107 in a High Court. While a aforesaid CMA was tentative in a High Court, certain developments took place that need to be noticed.

114. With a perspective to put an finish to a disputes between a dual opposition groups in a Malankara Church, Patriarch Elias we visited Malabar in 1931 during a instance of Lord Irwin, a afterwards Viceroy of India. Patriarch Elias I, however, died in Malabar before he could outcome any settlement. In his place, one Ephraim was inaugurated as a Patriarch of Antioch in a year 1933, but, it is said, yet notice to a Malabar Community. For this reason, Mar Geevarghese Dionysius and his supporters did not recognize Ephraim as a duly inaugurated Patriarch.

115. Mar Geevarghese Dionysius died in February, 1934 with outcome a trust properties inspected into a possession of his co-trustees, Mani Poulose Kathanar and E.J.Joseph. Shortly thereafter, a breeze structure prepared by a Managing Committee of a Malankara Association was published in a shpae of a pamphlet. On 3-12-1934 notices were released convening a assembly of all a Churches to be reason on 26-12-1934 during M.D. Seminary during Kottayam for, inter alia, electing a Malankara Metropolitan and adopting a breeze constitution. Notices were also published in dual heading Malayalam newspapers. The assembly was reason on a allocated day (the record whereof were exhibited as Ex. 64 in Samudayam suit), during which, a third Catholicos, Mar Basselios Geevarghese II was inaugurated as Malankara Metropolitan. The breeze structure was also adopted during a conspicuous meeting.

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
117. The Constitution was nice in 1951 and again in 1967. When a 1951 amendments were made, a visualisation of a Travancore High Court antiquated Aug 8, 1946 was holding a margin whereunder a Catholicos organisation were announced as strangers to a Malankara Church. For that reason, it appears, nothing of a members of a Patriarch organisation participated in fulfilment a conspicuous amendments.
Samudayam Suit

118. On 5-7-1935 a Metropolitans of a Patriarchal celebration released notice summoning a assembly of a church member for 22- 8-1935 during Karingasserai to elect a Malankara Metropolitan. The notice staid that nothing of a persons belonging to Catholicos celebration should be elected. The assembly was accordingly reason on 22-8-1935 whereat Mar Poulose Athanasius was inaugurated as a Malankara Metropolitan. The assembly supposed to mislay a curators inaugurated during a Meeting reason on 26-12-1934 (i.e., Mani Poulose Kathanar and E.J. Joseph, belonging to Catholicos group) and allocated dual other persons in their place. Having finished this, a Patriarch organisation (plaintiffs appellants in C.M.A. 74 of 1107 tentative in a High Court) certified a seductiveness to be discharged for nonprosecution.
119. The Patriarch organisation afterwards instituted, on 10-3-1938, O.S.No.111 of 1113 in a District Court of Kottayam (hereinafter referred to as “the Samudayam Suit”) for a stipulation of their pretension as curators of a Samudam properties (common properties) of a Malankara Church and for a serve stipulation that a defendants to that fit (belonging to Catholicos group) were not central curators and for possession of a trust properties. Certain subordinate reliefs were also asked for. The plaintiffs in a conspicuous fit formed their pretension on a record of a Karingasserai assembly aforesaid, whereat a plaintiffs therein were inaugurated as Malankara Metropolitan and co-trustees and a curators belonging to Catholicos organisation (defendants to a suit) were removed. The fit was discharged by a Trial Court on 18-1-1943, opposite that a plaintiffs therein elite an seductiveness to a Travancore High Court being A.S.No.I of 1119. On 8-8-1946 a seductiveness was certified and a fit intended by a infancy of Judges (2:1). The defendants (Catholicos group) thereupon practical for examination that was rejected. The matter was carried to this Court in Civil Appeal No.193 of 1952 that was certified on 21-5-1954. This justice destined a High Court to re-hear A.S.No.I of 1119 on all a points. Accordingly, a High Court took adult a seductiveness for conference and certified a same by a visualisation antiquated 13-12-1956. The fit was intended accordingly. On a certificate being postulated by a High Court, a defendants (catholicos group) filed an seductiveness in this Court that was certified on 12-9-1958 (reported in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira [A.IR. 1959 SC 31].
xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

3. Thereafter, in a year 1979, a Catholicos filed O.S.No.4/1979 inter alia praying that Malankara Church be announced episcopal in character, and that it is governed in a administration by a Constitution of a Malankara Church. The Catholicos sought for a serve stipulation that no metropolitan, clergyman or deacon can go in any of a Malankara Churches unless allocated underneath a 1934 Constitution. The record instituted by a Catholicos culminated in a preference of a Supreme Court in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another [1995 Supp (4) SCC 286], that reason that a energy and supervision of a Catholicos was available in Kalpana A-13 and A-14 and was re-enforced and lengthened in a 1934 Constitution. It was reason that a 1934 Constitution is germane to Malankara Church and a Parish Church and Organisations, recognising that a Catholicos/Malankara Metroploitan has control over both devout and community affairs of a Malankara Church. It was serve reason that a Patriarch organisation can't doubt a legality and outcome of a 1934 Constitution. Further directions were afterwards released for amendment of Clause 68 of a Constitution to pierce about proportional illustration formed on a distance of a assemblage of any of a Constituent Parish Churches.

4. It is applicable to note that, while directing a amendment of a 1934 Constitution, a Supreme Court also destined that an choosing should take place within 3 months on a basement of Articles 71 and 46 of a nice Constitution. Until a new handling cabinet was elected, a Status quo was also destined to be maintained. As regards a halt arrangement that was accessible in honour of a Metropolitans, vicars etc. who had been hallowed by a opposite factions tentative a final preference in a matter, a Supreme Court in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthorma Mathews [(1997) 10 SCC 614] destined that any and any chairman claiming to reason any bureau or posts in a Malankara Church would be firm by, and should swear devotion to, a 1934 Constitution. The Court also extended a time to reason elections compartment 30.4.1997.

5. The visualisation in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma [1995 Supp (4) SCC 286] was implemented in execution record before this Court. The Catholicos organisation claimed that elections had already been held, and hence, a execution was complete. This fact, however, was doubtful by a Patriarch group. While this Court did not go into a doubt possibly a direct stood complied with by holding elections, it resolved that Moran Mar Marthoma Mathews of a Catholicos organisation had not been inaugurated as a Malankara Metropolitan.

6. The visualisation antiquated 6.4.2001 of this Court in A.S.No.331/1980 was set aside by a Supreme Court by a agree sequence antiquated 28.11.2001, and a Court destined uninformed elections to be conducted to a Malankara Association, underneath a organisation of Justice V.L.Malimath, late Chief Justice of this Court. By a apart sequence antiquated 12.7.2002 in C.A.No.8185/2001 – Moran Mar Thoma Mathews v. Most. Rev. Thomas Mar D. Metropolitan and Others [(2017) 15 SCC 518], a Supreme Court celebrated that a Association so inaugurated pursuant to a visualisation in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma [1995 Supp (4) SCC 286] and a agree sequence antiquated 28.11.2001 Moran Mar Thoma Mathews v. Most Rev. Thomas Mar D. Metropolitan [(2017) 15 SCC 520] shall be a organisation for all functions within a definition of, and for a functions of, a 1934 Constitution, as amended.

7. The Malankara Association, as constituted by a sequence of a Supreme Court, carrying motionless vide infancy that Moran Mar Baselios Mar Thoma Mathews II is a Malankara Metropolitan, a conspicuous preference was announced as final and contracting and not theme to defence in any justice or other forum.

8. The Patriarch group, that was apparently not confident with a conspicuous state of affairs, attempted to form a possess Constitution, and a same was purebred on 15.7.2002 with retrospective outcome from 5.7.2002. Taking note of a sequence inspected by a Supreme Court on 12.7.2002, however, a Patriarch proceeded to designate his possess Malankara Metropolitan and Catholicos and they abstained from participating in a elections reason as per a orders of a Supreme Court pursuant to a 1995 visualisation Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another [1995 Supp (4) SCC 286].

9. Disputes subsequently arose relating to a 3 churches during Kolenchery, Varikoli and a Mannathoor and a Civil Suits filed in deputy capacities in honour of a conspicuous Churches, culminated in a visualisation of a Supreme Court in K.S. Varghese and Others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church and Others [(2017) 15 SCC 333]. The conclusions drawn by a Supreme Court in a conspicuous box are to be found during divide 228 of a judgment, that reads as under:
“xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

228. Resultantly, formed on a aforesaid commentary in a judgment, a categorical conclusions, inter alia, are as follows :

228.1. Malankara Church is Episcopal in impression to a border it is so announced in a 1934 Constitution. The 1934 Constitution entirely governs a affairs of a Parish Churches and shall prevail.

228.2. The direct in a 1995 visualisation is totally in balance with a judgment. There is no brawl between a visualisation and a decree.

228.3. The 1995 visualisation outset out of a deputy fit is contracting and operates as res judicata with honour to a matters it has decided, in a arise of supplies of Order 1 Rule 8 and Explanation 6 to Section 11 CPC. The same binds not usually a parties named in a fit yet all those who have seductiveness in a Malankara Church. Findings in progressing deputy suit, i.e., Samudayam fit are also contracting on Parish Churches/Parishioners to a border issues have been decided.

READ  Landmark judgment on burden of proof and onus of proof

228.4. As a 1934 Constitution is current and contracting on a Parish Churches, it is not open to any sold Church, to confirm to have their new Constitution like that of 2002 in a supposed practice of right underneath Articles 25 and 26 of a Constitution of India. It is also not slight to emanate a together complement of organisation in a churches underneath a guise of devout leverage of a Patriarch.

228.5. The Primate of Orthodox Syrian Church of a East is Catholicos. He enjoys devout powers as well, as a Malankara Metropolitan. Malankara Metropolitan has a primary bureau per temporal, ecclesiastical and devout administration of Malankara Church theme to a riders supposing in a 1934 Constitution.

228.6. Full outcome has to be given to a anticipating that a devout energy of a Patriarch has reached to a declining point. Consequently, he can't meddle in a governance of Parish Churches by appointing Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests) etc. and thereby can't emanate a together complement of administration. The appointment has to be finished as per a energy conferred underneath a 1934 Constitution on a Diocese, Metropolitan etc. concerned.

228.7. Though it is open to a sold member to leave a Church in practice of a right not to be a member of any Association and as per Article 20 of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a Parish Assembly of a Church by infancy or differently can't confirm to pierce church out of a Malankara Church. Once a trust, is always a trust.

228.8. When a Church has been combined and is for a advantage of a beneficiaries, it is not open for a beneficiaries, even by a majority, to adopt a skill or management. The Malankara Church is in a form of a trust in which, a properties have vested. As per the1934 Constitution, a Parishioners yet competence divided leave a Church, they are not accessible to take a mobile or determined properties out of a ambit of 1934 Constitution yet a capitulation of a Church hierarchy.

228.9. The devout energy of Patriarch has been set adult by a appellants clearly in sequence to violate a charge of a 1995 visualisation of this Court that is contracting on a Patriarch, Catholicos and all concerned.

228.10. As per a chronological credentials and a practices that have been noted, a Patriarch is not to practice a energy to designate Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates etc. Such powers are indifferent to other authorities in a Church hierarchy. The Patriarch, thus, can't be accessible to practice a energy in defilement of a 1934 Constitution to emanate a together complement of administration of Churches as finished in 2002 and onwards.

228.11. This Court has reason in 1995 that a uneven practice of such energy by a Patriarch was illegal. The conspicuous preference has also been violated. It was usually in a choice this Court reason in a 1995 visualisation that even if he has such power, he could not have exercised a same unilaterally that we have explained in this judgment.

228.12. It is open to a Parishioners to trust in a devout leverage of Patriarch or approved period yet it can't be used to designate Vicars, Priests, Deacons, Prelates etc. in transgression of a 1934 Constitution.

228.13. Malankara Church is Episcopal to a border as supposing in a 1934 Constitution, and a right is hexed by a Diocese to settle all inner matters and elect their possess Bishops in terms of a conspicuous Constitution.

228.14. Appointment of Vicar is a physical matter. There is no defilement of any of a rights encompassed underneath Articles 25 and 26 of a Constitution of India, if a appointment of Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests) etc. is finished as per a 1934 Constitution. The Patriarch has no energy to meddle in such matters underneath a guise of devout leverage unless a 1934 Constitution is nice in suitability with law. The same is contracting on all concerned.

228.15. Udampadies do not yield for appointment of Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates etc. Even differently once a 1934 Constitution has been adopted, a appointment of Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (High priests) etc. is to be as per a 1934 Constitution. It is not within a domain of a devout right of a Patriarch to designate Vicar, Priests etc. The devout energy also vests in a other functionaries of Malankara Church.

228.16. The functioning of a Church is formed on a multiplication of responsibilities during several levels and can't be usurped by a singular sold howsoever high he competence be. The multiplication of powers underneath a 1934 Constitution is for a purpose of effective organisation of a Church and does not militate opposite a simple impression of a Church being Episcopal in inlet as mandated thereby. The 1934 Constitution can't be construed to be opposite to a visualisation of devout leverage of a Patriarch of Antioch. It can't as well, be conspicuous to be an instrument of misapplication or car of hardship on a Parishioners who trust in a devout leverage of a Patriarch.

228.17. The Church and a tomb can't be confiscated by anybody. It has to sojourn with a Parishioners as per a prevalent rights and nobody can be deprived of a right to suffer a same as a Parishioner in a Church or to be buried justly in a cemetery, in box he continues to have faith in a Malankara Church. The skill of a Malankara Church in that is also vested a skill of a Parish Churches, would sojourn in trust as it has for a time ancient for a consequence of a beneficiaries and no one can explain to be owners thereof even by infancy and adopt a Church and a properties.
228.18. The faith of Church is unnecessarily sought to be divided vis-à-vis a bureau of Catholicos and a Patriarch as a common faith of a Church is in Jesus Christ. In fact an bid is being finished to take over a organisation and other powers by lifting such disputes as to leverage of Patriarch or Catholicos to benefit control of temporal matters underneath a clothe of spirituality. There is no good or genuine means for disputes that have been raised.

228.19. The supervision of Patriarch had never extended to a organisation of temporalities of a Churches. By doubt a movement of a Patriarch and his undue division in a administration of Churches in defilement of a 1995 judgment, it can't be conspicuous that a Catholicos coterie is guilty of disqualification a devout leverage of a Patriarch. The Patriarch coterie is to be blamed for a conditions that has been combined post 1995 judgment. The skill of a Church is to be managed as per a 1934 Constitution. The visualisation of 1995 has not been reputable by a Patriarch coterie that was contracting on all concerned. Filing of command petitions in a High Court by a Catholicos coterie was to deter a Patriarch/his member to designate a Vicar etc. in defilement of a 1995 visualisation of this Court.

228.20. The 1934 Constitution is enforceable during benefaction and a defence of a disappointment or crack is not accessible to a Patriarch faction. Once there is Malankara Church, it has to sojourn as such including a property. No organisation or description by infancy or differently can takeaway a organisation or a skill as that would probably tantamount to bootleg division in a organisation and bootleg allowance of a properties. It is not open to a beneficiaries even by infancy to change a inlet of a Church, a skill and management. The usually routine to change organisation is to rectify a Constitution of 1934 in suitability with law. It is not open to a Parish Churches to even support bye-laws in defilement of a supplies of a 1934 Constitution.

228.21. The Udampadies of 1890 and 1913 are with honour to administration of Churches and are not papers of a origination of a Trust and are not of application during benefaction and even differently can't reason a margin containing supplies unsuitable with a 1934 Constitution, as per Section 132 thereof. The Udampady also can't reason a margin in perspective of a lawful pronouncements finished by this Court in a progressing judgments as to a contracting inlet of the1934 Constitution.

228.22. The 1934 Constitution does not create, declare, assign, extent or extinguish, possibly in benefaction or destiny any right, pretension or interest, possibly vested or fortuitous in a Malankara Church properties and usually provides a complement of administration and as such is not compulsory to be registered. In any case, a Udampadies for a reasons already cited, can't substitute a 1934 Constitution usually given these are claimed to be registered.

228.23. In differently Episcopal Church, whatever liberty is supposing in a Constitution for a Churches is for organisation and required output as supposing in Section 22 etc.

228.24. The arrangement of 2002 Constitution is a outcome of bootleg and blank exercise. It can't be famous and a together complement combined thereunder for administration of Parish Churches of Malankara Church can't reason a field. It has to be administered underneath a 1934 Constitution.

228.25. It was not necessary, after amendment of a wail in Mannathur Church matter, to adopt a procession once again of deputy fit underneath Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. It remained a deputy fit and correct procession has been followed. It was not required to obtain uninformed leave.

228.26. The 1934 Constitution is suitable and adequate for organisation of a Parish Churches, as such there is no prerequisite of framing a intrigue underneath Section 92 CPC.

228.27. The defence that in face of a prevalent contrariety between a dual factions and a remote probability of reconciliation, a eremite services competence be accessible to be conducted by dual Vicars of any faith can't be supposed as that would volume to condescending together systems of administration.
228.28. Both a factions, for a consequence of a dedicated sacrament they confess and to capture serve contention and unpleasantness precipitating avoidable institutional degeneration, ought to solve their differences if any, on a common height if required by amending a Constitution serve in suitability with law, yet by no means, any try to emanate together systems of administration of a same Churches ensuing in law and sequence situations heading to even closure of a Churches can be accepted.
xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx”

The aforesaid preference in K.S. Varghese and Others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church and Others [(2017) 15 SCC 333] has subsequently been available by a Supreme Court in Mathews Mar Koorilos (Dead) and Another v. M. Pappy (Dead) and Another [(2018) 9 SCC 672].
10. We have narrated a lawsuit story in some fact here usually so that a issues in these command petitions can be appreciated in a backdrop of a past events. The command petitions are elite by persons of a Orthodox coterie seeking military insurance for enabling Vicars, duly allocated by Diocesan Metropolitans in suitability with a 1934 Constitution, to liberate their devout and managerial duties during a sold churches, yet being blocked by a respondents therein who are staid to go to a Patriarch faction.

11. During a march of arguments in these command petitions, we had asked Counsel for both sides to take us by a several decisions of a Supreme Court, as minute above, so as to try an gentle fortitude of a evident disputes between a dual factions, in a light of a stipulation of law by a Supreme Court. We notice that, pursuant to a sequence of a Supreme Court in 2001, a Catholicos was duly inaugurated in suitability with a 1934 Constitution and thereafter, a new cabinet was inaugurated to take preference as to who, among a several Diocesan Metropolitans, Vicars, Priests, Prelates etc. that were allocated by possibly coterie during a pendency of a brawl before a Supreme Court, and who were certified to continue as such in a interregnum, should be famous as a genuine obligatory to a post. The fortitude of a inaugurated cabinet reveals that usually those whose names have been privately mentioned in a conspicuous fortitude are famous as validly hallowed Diocesan Metropolitans, Vicars, Prelates, Priests etc. Resultantly, all others who competence have been hallowed as such, during a pendency of a lis before a Supreme Court, no longer have a supervision to continue as Diocesan Metropolitans, Vicars, Prelates, Priests etc of a Malankara Syrian Christian Church. This is given their really ordainment was theme to a outcome of a lis, and on a culmination, a declaratory visualisation rendered their really ordainment, a authorised nullity.

12. In a march of arguments in these command petitions, another critical aspect relating to a parishioners, that was brought to a notice is that there have been instances where parishioners of a sold church, who owe devotion to a Patriarch faction, have been denied their right to bury their family members, in a space allotted for arise of their family members in a tomb trustworthy to a church concerned. This, in a view, would not be in suitability with a stipulation of a Supreme Court in a cases referred above. As celebrated by a Supreme Court in divide 228.17 in K.S. Varghese’s box [supra], a Church and a tomb can't be confiscated by anybody. It has to sojourn with a Parishioners as per a prevalent rights and nobody can be deprived of a right to suffer a same as a Parishioner in a Church or to be buried justly in a cemetery, in box he continues to have faith in a Malankara Church. The skill of a Malankara Church in that is also vested a skill of a Parish Churches, would sojourn in trust as it has for time ancient for a consequence of a beneficiaries and no one can explain to be owners thereof even by infancy and adopt a Church and a properties. Accordingly, so prolonged as a chairman claiming a right to arise continues to be a parishioner of a church, and his/her name is not private from a register of parishioners of a church pursuant to a due routine of law, a small fact of devotion of a Parishioner to a Patriarch, who is admittedly a devout control of a Malankara Church even as per a 1934 Constitution, or his/her desire to a beliefs of a Patriarch faction, can't dispossess a parishioner of his/her right to arise in a church of that he/she is a parishioner. This right can't be taken divided even if, in sold circumstances, a parishioner chooses to abstain arise services in a church or a tomb or opts for a arise use during any other premises by a clergyman of his/her choice. The right to a arise in a tomb contingency be seen as outset from his standing as a Parishioner of a Church.
We shall now understanding with a sold cases before us.
W.P.(C).No.33282/2018:

READ  Whether husband is entitled to get divorce if he fails to pay interim maintenance?

13.1. This command petition is filed by a St.Mary’s Orthodox Church (Kattachira Palli), and a Vicar, (Rev. Fr.Johns Eapen) who are decorated as petitioners 1 and 2, seeking a instruction to a Police authorities of a State to describe adequate and sufficient military insurance to a life of a 2nd postulant and other Clergy members including Vicars, Priests, Deacons, Prelates, Metropolitans and a Catholicos of a Malankara Orthodox Church allocated underneath a 1934 Constitution, to control eremite services in a 1st postulant Church, a tomb and kurishadies, and a parishioners of a 1st postulant Church, who announce devotion to a 1934 Constitution, in participating in such eremite services yet any deterrent from respondents 11 to 17, their men, agents or supporters of Jacobite coterie and anybody claiming underneath them. The respondents 1 to 10, as already noticed, are officials of a State Government including a Police authorities, and respondents 11 to 17 are members of a Clergy as also parishioners overdue devotion to a Patriarch faction.

13.2. In a command petition, a petitioners snippet their authorised right in honour of a organisation of a Church property, as also a right to control eremite services therein, to a record that were instituted before a Sub Court, Mavelikkara by O.S.No.6/1976 [later renumbered as O.S.No.187/1977]. The conspicuous Suit was one elite on seductiveness of a Orthodox faction, in a deputy capacity, seeking a stipulation that a Church and a properties were means to a Diocesan Metropolitan of Kollam Diocese, and that a Vicar allocated in suitability with a 1934 Constitution alone is entitled to duty as a ‘Vicar’ of a Church, and all others are to be injuncted from functioning as Vicars. Before a same Court, O.S.No.17/1976 also came to be filed by members belonging to a Patriarch coterie severe a outcome of a benefaction help in foster of a Diocesan Metropolitan, and seeking a stipulation that a Church and a properties belonging to a parishioners.

13.3. The suits were likely by visualisation antiquated 6.3.1986, whereunder, O.S.No.187/1977 was decreed, and O.S.No.17/1976 was dismissed.

13.4. This led a Patriarch coterie to cite Appeals, namely, A.S.Nos.140/1986 and 142/1986 opposite a common visualisation antiquated 6.3.1986 of a Sub Court, Mavelikkara. While a appeals were tentative before this Court, a 2nd postulant was allocated as Vicar of a Church pursuant to Ext.P2 sequence antiquated 4.10.1994 in A.S.No.142/1986. The appointment of a 2nd postulant as Vicar was also authorized by Ext.P3 Kalpana released by a Diocesan Metropolitan.
13.5. The Appeals were after discharged by visualisation antiquated 17.6.1996, and opposite a conspicuous judgment, serve Appeals – A.F.A.Nos.26/1997 and 27/1997 were elite before a Division Bench of this Court by a Patriarch faction. The conspicuous Appeals were certified by a Division Bench vide visualisation antiquated 4.4.2000, that definitely reason that a Church and a properties belonged to a Parishioners, and it was with their agree alone that a Vicar could be appointed.

13.6. In a following Appeals elite by a Orthodox coterie opposite a visualisation of a Division Bench in a A.F.As aforementioned, a Supreme Court, by visualisation antiquated 28.4.2018 [Mathews Mar Koorilos (Dead) and Another v. M. Pappy (Dead) and Another [(2018) 9 SCC 672]] certified a Appeals following a progressing preference in K.S. Varghese and Others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church and Others [(2017) 15 SCC 333]. In a visualisation antiquated 28.4.2018, a Supreme Court found that inasmuch as a 1934 Constitution is contracting on a Parish Church and a parishioners, a Division Bench of this Court erred in holding that a Metropolitan had no energy to designate Vicar, Priest etc. The finish of a Division Bench that a parishioners have a right to make all such appointments and to control a affairs of a St.Mary’s Church was reason directly discordant to a demonstrate supplies of a 1934 Constitution, and a commentary of a Supreme Court in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and Others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another [1995 Supp (4) SCC 286]. The commentary of a Trial justice and a Single Judge that a St.Mary’s Church is a basic of Malankara, and a energy to designate Vicar, Priest etc. is vested with a Malankara Metropolitan or a representatives, was inspected by a Supreme Court.

14.1. It is on a basement of a aforesaid commentary rendered by a Supreme Court, in a Appeal elite opposite a judgments of a courts below, that a petitioners now explain that respondent No.13 (Fr. Roy George), who is currently functioning as a Vicar in a 1st postulant Church, can't continue to do so, and contingency give proceed to a 2nd postulant (Rev. Fr. Johns Eapen), who has been hallowed by a Diocesan Metropolitan duly famous by a Catholicos in suitability with a 1934 Constitution. The defence for military insurance is finished in a arise of purported incidents that occurred in a Church when a 2nd postulant attempted to enter a Church, for a functions of conducting eremite services. It is staid that respondents 11 to 17 blocked a 2nd postulant from conducting eremite services.

14.2. Detailed opposite affidavits have been filed on seductiveness of respondents 13, 15, 16 and 17 as also by a central respondents of a State Government. In a confirmation filed on seductiveness of respondents 13, 15, 16 and 17, a mount taken is that a command petition is one that attempts to find execution of a visualisation of a Supreme Court, in a guise of seeking military protection. It is forked out that there were many FIRs purebred in tie with a aroused incidents that occurred in and around a Church premises, and a idea that a aroused acts were committed usually by members of a Patriarch faction, is denied. After referring to a lawsuit that culminated in a visualisation of a Supreme Court, it is forked out that due significance and weightage ought to be given to a parishioners of a Church, generally when a Parish register confirmed in a Church would exhibit that some-more than 95% of a parishioners go to a Patriarch faction. The conflict of a infancy of a parishioners is staid to be with courtesy to a functioning of a 2nd postulant (Rev. Fr. Johns Eapen) as Vicar, some-more so since, he belongs to a Orthodox faction, a beliefs of that is not aligned to that of a members of a Patriarch faction. In a apart opposite confirmation filed on seductiveness of a 14th respondent, anxiety is finished to a supplies of a Supreme Court Rules, 2013, to advise that a petitioners would have to rigourously govern a visualisation of a Supreme Court in a Appeal elite by them, and a execution of a directions in a visualisation of a Supreme Court can't be sought by a command petition filed for military protection.

14.3. In a confirmation filed on seductiveness of a State Government, anxiety is finished to a disputes that arose in a Church premises and a crimes purebred opposite several persons pursuant thereto. In particular, it is forked out that, on 16.9.2018, one Saramma, aged 94, who belonged to a Patriarch faction, expired, and when attempts were finished to control a arise during a Church tomb along with a Priest belonging to a Patriarch Faction, disputes arose between a dual factions, that necessitated a summoning of a R.D.O., Chengannur and Tahsildar, and afterward a arise could take place usually after commanding restrictions on a Priest belonging to a Patriarch faction. It is staid that a District Collector had, by an sequence antiquated 27.9.2018, extended a progressing sequence inspected underneath Section 144 of a Code of Criminal Procedure, holding note of a aroused conditions nearby a Church Premises.

14.4. During a march of arguments before us, it came out that after a incidents that necessitated a proceed to this Court for military protection, no serve incidents have occurred, and a conditions during a impulse is peaceful. As already remarkable above, one of a reasons that appears to be a means for objections/reservations by those parishioners who go to a Patriarch faction, is that, a bodies of their kin are not accessible arise in a Church cemetery, yet them initial submitting to a control of a eremite rite by a Priest of a Orthodox faction. We have already dealt with a legality of such situations in an progressing partial of this judgment, where, we have beheld a directions of a Supreme Court in K.S.Varghese (Supra), that taboo a lien of a tomb or a allowance of a same by any faction. In a light of a directions already released in a progressing partial of this judgment, including a construction with courtesy to a persons who can duty legally as Vicar of a Church, and holding note of a benefaction pacific conditions prevalent in a Church, we hold it suitable to tighten a Writ petition in a light of a directions released in a progressing partial of this judgment, and creation it transparent that in a eventuality of any defilement of a directions in this judgment, ensuing in a law and sequence conditions in a Church premises, it would be open to a petitioners to proceed a Police authorities for protection, in that event, a Police authorities shall act formed on a observations finished in this judgment.

14.5. By proceed of abounding caution, and with a perspective to forestall any serve ambiguity, we competence explain that, vis-a-vis, a 2nd postulant (Rev. Fr. Johns Eapen) and a 13th respondent (Fr. Roy George), both of whom explain to be Vicars functioning in a Church, it is a 2nd postulant alone, who can validly explain ordainment as a Vicar by a Diocesan Metropolitan famous underneath a 1934 Constitution, as seen from a Minutes of a assembly of a Managing Committee of a Malankara Association reason on 9th and 10th of August, 2002.

14.6. As regards a continuation of a 14th respondent as keeper in a Parish Committee, a conspicuous arrangement shall not be uneasy compartment such time as new curators are allocated pursuant to a current choosing reason for a same.
W.P.(C).No.16248/2018

15.1. The St.Mary’s Orthodox Church, Varikoli and a Vicar and curators are a petitioners in this command petition, where a request is for a instruction to a State and a Police authorities to extend adequate and sufficient military insurance to a Church and a properties including Chapel, Cemetery as also a Vicar, Parishioners for well-spoken control of eremite services as good as administration of Church and a properties, yet any deterrent from members of a Patriarch coterie underneath a care of respondents 6 to 12, or their agents. While there is a anxiety in a command petition to several crimes that were purebred during a Puthencruze Police Station as also a Chottanikkara Police Station, in tie with purported aroused activities by members of a Patriarch faction, it is a clear mount of Sri.G.Keerthivas, a schooled warn appearing for respondents 6 to 12, that there is no deterrent caused to a petitioners by a conspicuous persons, and that their apprehensions were usually with courtesy to a petitioners respecting a arise rights of a parishioners.

15.2. In a light of a specific mount taken by respondents 6 to 12 before us, and holding note of a clarifications/directions released in this visualisation in tie with a right of persons, who can duty as Vicars as also a arise rights of parishioners of Churches, we do not see any prerequisite for outset any certain instruction for military protection, save to observe that, in a eventuality of any law and sequence conditions arising, a military shall respond to any defence for military protection, if finished by a petitioners herein, and shall means adequate military insurance in a eventuality of them anticipating a crack by any chairman of a directions released in this judgment. The command petition is accordingly closed.
W.P.(C).No.40172/2018:

16.1. The petitioners in this command petition are staid to be parishioners of a Piravom St.Mary’s Jacobite Syrian Church, who were curators of a conspicuous Church from

16.5.2004 to 21.10.2014, and staid to be functioning as per a 1934 Constitution. The request in a command petition is for a instruction to a 1st respondent State Government to take a preference on Ext.P4 illustration elite by them, holding note of a directions of a Supreme Court in divide 228.28 in K.S. Varghese and Others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church and Others [(2017) 15 SCC 333].
16.2. When a matter came adult for conference along with a other Writ petitions involving a same issue, it was submitted by a schooled State Attorney on seductiveness of a State Government, that aspiring stairs have been taken by a State Government, by a Chief Minister, to pierce a Patriarch as also a Catholicos to a traffic list for bringing about an gentle fortitude of a tentative disputes between a opposition factions of a Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church. We have also been shown copies of a communications released to a Patriarch as also a Catholicos towards this end. In a light of a conspicuous communications shown to us, we find that stairs have already been taken by a State Government towards brokering assent between a dual opposition factions, and hence, we do not hold it required to emanate any serve instruction to a State Government. The command petition is so closed, by holding note of a stairs taken by a State Government towards an gentle fortitude of a disputes between a approved coterie and a Patriarch coterie of a Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 MyNation KnowledgeBase
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

READ  Whether Civil suit is Maintainable for recovery of Dowry and gold ornaments?
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation