SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Fr. Issac Mattammel Cor Episcopa vs St. Marys Orthodox Syrian Church on 6 September, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7115-7116 OF 2019
(ARISING FROM SLP(C) Nos.20661-20662 OF 2019)

FR. ISSAC MATTAMMEL COR-EPISCOPA ..APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ST. MARY’S ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. It passes comprehension that how the judge has passed the

impugned interim order which runs expressly contrary to the decision of

this Court in SectionK.S. Verghese v. St. Peters St. Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church

Ors., (2017) 15 SCC 333. This Court has passed several judgments and

orders to the effect that no such interference can be made by any court

after the decision has been rendered by this Court in a representative suit

which is binding on all concerned and it is the constitutional duty of all

concerned to obey the judgment and order of this Court. As per SectionArticle 141

of the Constitution of India, the law declared by this Court is binding on all

courts and under SectionArticle 144, civil and judicial authorities within the

territory of India shall act in aid of Supreme Court. Kerala being Indian

Territory all concerned are bound to act accordingly. We have intended

peace to come in Church but due to such orders passed in contravention of

law laid down by this Court law can never be obeyed. This amount to a

violation of judgment and order. The High Court has passed an interim
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2019.09.16
17:03:02 IST
Reason: order in violation of the judgments and orders passed by this Court. We

1
are not able to understand what kind of judicial discipline is reflected while

passing the impugned order, which should not have been passed at all. We

restrain all the Civil Courts and the High Court in Kerala not to pass any

order in violation of the mandate of this Court’s decision in K.S. Varghese

(supra).

3. The appeal arises out of the suit, pending before the High Court, is

disposed of in terms of the decision passed by this Court in K.S. Varghese

(supra) as there is no scope left for further litigation on the issue. The High

Court has no right to tinker with the judgment and order passed by this

Court which is binding and the judicial propriety has to be maintained at

all costs. There is no scope for further litigation in the matter which we

have concluded. We direct the Courts to decide all pending matters

following the aforesaid decision which has been affirmed thereafter by

umpteen number of times.

4. The binding effect of the representative suit has been considered

before this Court in K.S. Verghese (supra) thus:

“78. The aforesaid findings and the declaration in the aforesaid decree
that was passed in the 1995 judgment4 extracted above, in a
representative suit, is binding. This Court in R. Venugopala Naidu v.

Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities 1989 Supp (2) SCC 356 has dealt with
the suit under Section 92 and Order 1 Rule 8 CPC and it was held that
such a suit is the representative action of a large number of persons who
have a common interest. The suit binds not only the parties named in
the suit but all those who are interested in the trust. It is for that reason
Explanation 6 to Section 11 CPC constructively bars by res judicata the
entire body of interested persons from agitating the matters directly in
issue in an earlier suit under Section 92 CPC. This Court has laid down
thus: (SCC pp. 360-61, para 11)
“11. It is not necessary to go into the finding of the High Court
that two of the appellants being Muslims can have no interest in the
trust as the other two appellants claim to be the beneficiaries of the
trust and their claim has not been negatived. Moreover, the trust

2
has been constituted to perform not only charities of a religious
nature but also charities of a secular nature such as providing for
drinking water and food for the general public without reference to
caste or religion.”

Section 11 read with Explanation 6 is extracted hereunder:

“11. Res judicata.—No court shall try any suit or issue in which
the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and
substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or
between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating
under the same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent
suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised,
and has been heard and finally decided by such court.

** *
Explanation VI.—Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of
public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves
and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the
purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so
litigating.”

79. Order 1 Rule 8 is an exception to the general rule that all persons
interested in the suit are to be made parties thereto. The object for
which the provision is enacted is to provide an exception to the ordinary
procedure in a case where common rights of community or members of
such association or large section are involved. It will be practically
difficult to institute the suit under the ordinary procedure by impleading
every person in which every individual has to maintain account by a
separate suit and to avoid numerous suits being filed for a decision on
the common question. Order 1 Rule 8 had been enacted so as to
simplify the procedure. In case parties have bona fide litigated the
question and there had been no collusion in such a suit, the decision
would bind the others. The rule entitles one party to represent many and
the action is maintainable without joinder of other parties. Order 1 Rule
8 presupposes that there are numerous persons having the same interest.
One or more such persons with permission of the court may sue or be
sued or may defend such suit on behalf of the persons so interested. In
such a case notice has to be given as per Order 1 Rule 8(2) by way of
public advertisement and then any person on whose behalf or whose
benefit the suit is instituted or defended has a right to apply to the court
to be made a party to such a suit. It is provided in Order 1 Rule 8(6) that
the decree in a suit under this rule shall be binding on all the persons on
whose behalf or for whose benefit the suit is instituted or defended, as
the case may be. As per the mandate of Order 1 Rule 8(6), the finding
that was recorded in the earlier suit that was decided in 19587 as well as
in 19954 is binding insofar as the questions decided in a representative
character. The provision of Explanation 6 to Section 11 applies to such
a suit as held in SectionKumaravelu Chettiar v. Ramaswami Ayyar1. This Court
has decided the issue in the 1995 suit to the extent that the parties were

1
1933 SCC OnLine PC 33

3
having the common interest as contemplated in Order 1 Rule 8 and left
open issues with respect to temporal matters in the absence of parish
churches. To that extent only, we can decide the issues and other issues
have to be taken as barred by the principle of res judicata as per
Explanation 6 to Section 11 and Order 1 Rule 8 CPC.”

5. This Court K.S. Verghese (Supra) has ultimately held as under:

“228. Resultantly, based on the aforesaid findings in the judgment, our
main conclusions, inter alia, are as follows:

228.1. Malankara Church is episcopal in character to the extent it is so
declared in the 1934 Constitution. The 1934 Constitution fully governs
the affairs of the parish churches and shall prevail.
228.2. The decree in the 1995 judgment2 is completely in tune with the
judgment. There is no conflict between the judgment and the decree.
228.3. The 1995 judgment arising out of the representative suit is
binding and operates as res judicata with respect to the matters it has
decided, in the wake of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 and
Explanation 6 to Section 11 CPC. The same binds not only the parties
named in the suit but all those who have interest in the Malankara
Church. Findings in earlier representative suit i.e. Samudayam suit are
also binding on parish churches/parishioners to the extent issues have
been decided.

228.4. As the 1934 Constitution is valid and binding upon the parish
churches, it is not open to any individual Church, to decide to have their
new Constitution like that of 2002 in the so-called exercise of right
under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. It is also not
permissible to create a parallel system of management in the Churches
under the guise of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch.
228.5. The Primate of Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is
Catholicos. He enjoys spiritual powers as well, as the Malankara
Metropolitan. Malankara Metropolitan has the prime jurisdiction
regarding temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administration of
Malankara Church subject to the riders provided in the 1934
Constitution.

228.6. Full effect has to be given to the finding that the spiritual power
of the Patriarch has reached to a vanishing point. Consequently, he
cannot interfere in the governance of parish churches by appointing
Vicar, priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests), etc. and thereby cannot
create a parallel system of administration. The appointment has to be
made as per the power conferred under the 1934 Constitution on the
Diocese, Metropolitan, etc. concerned.

228.7. Though it is open to the individual member to leave a Church in
exercise of the right not to be a member of any association and as per
SectionArticle 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Parish
Assembly of the Church by majority or otherwise cannot decide to

2
SectionMost Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286

4
move Church out of the Malankara Church. Once a trust is always a
trust.

228.8. When the Church has been created and is for the benefit of the
beneficiaries, it is not open for the beneficiaries, even by a majority, to
usurp its property or management. The Malankara Church is in the form
of a trust in which, its properties have vested. As per the 1934
Constitution, the parishioners though may individually leave the
Church, they are not permitted to take the movable or immovable
properties out of the ambit of the 1934 Constitution without the
approval of the Church hierarchy.

228.9. The spiritual power of Patriarch has been set up by the appellants
clearly in order to violate the mandate of the 1995 judgment of this
Court which is binding on the Patriarch, Catholicos and all concerned.
228.10. As per the historical background and the practices which have
been noted, the Patriarch is not to exercise the power to appoint Vicar,
priests, Deacons, Prelates, etc. Such powers are reserved to other
authorities in the Church hierarchy. The Patriarch, thus, cannot be
permitted to exercise the power in violation of the 1934 Constitution to
create a parallel system of administration of Churches as done in 2002
and onwards.

228.11. This Court has held in 1995 that the unilateral exercise of such
power by the Patriarch was illegal. The said decision has also been
violated. It was only in the alternative this Court held in the 1995
judgment that even if he has such power, he could not have exercised
the same unilaterally which we have explained in this judgment.
228.12. It is open to the parishioners to believe in the spiritual
supremacy of the Patriarch or apostolic succession but it cannot be used
to appoint Vicars, priests, Deacons, Prelates, etc. in contravention of the
1934 Constitution.

228.13. Malankara Church is episcopal to the extent as provided in the
1934 Constitution, and the right is possessed by the Diocese to settle all
internal matters and elect their own Bishops in terms of the said
Constitution.

228.14. Appointment of Vicar is a secular matter. There is no violation
of any of the rights encompassed under Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India, if the appointment of Vicar, priests, Deacons,
Prelates (High priests), etc. is made as per the 1934 Constitution. The
Patriarch has no power to interfere in such matters under the guise of
spiritual supremacy unless the 1934 Constitution is amended in
accordance with law. The same is binding on all concerned.
228.15. Udampadies do not provide for appointment of Vicar, priests,
Deacons, Prelates, etc. Even otherwise once the 1934 Constitution has
been adopted, the appointment of Vicar, priests, Deacons, Prelates
(High priests), etc. is to be as per the 1934 Constitution. It is not within
the domain of the spiritual right of the Patriarch to appoint Vicar,
priests, etc. The spiritual power also vests in the other functionaries of
the Malankara Church.

228.16. The functioning of the Church is based upon the division of
responsibilities at various levels and cannot be usurped by a single

5
individual howsoever high he may be. The division of powers under the
1934 Constitution is for the purpose of effective management of the
Church and does not militate against the basic character of the Church
being episcopal in nature as mandated thereby. The 1934 Constitution
cannot be construed to be opposed to the concept of spiritual supremacy
of the Patriarch of Antioch. It cannot as well, be said to be an
instrument of injustice or vehicle of oppression on the parishioners who
believe in the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch.
228.17. The Church and the cemetery cannot be confiscated by
anybody. It has to remain with the parishioners as per the customary
rights and nobody can be deprived of the right to enjoy the same as a
Parishioner in the Church or to be buried honourably in the cemetery, in
case he continues to have faith in the Malankara Church. The property
of the Malankara Church in which is also vested the property of the
parish churches, would remain in trust as it has for time immemorial for
the sake of the beneficiaries and no one can claim to be owners thereof
even by majority and usurp the Church and the properties.
228.18. The faith of Church is unnecessarily sought to be divided vis-à-
vis the office of Catholicos and the Patriarch as the common faith of the
Church is in Jesus Christ. In fact an effort is being made to take over the
management and other powers by raising such disputes as to supremacy
of Patriarch or Catholicos to gain control of temporal matters under the
garb of spirituality. There is no good or genuine cause for disputes
which have been raised.

228.19. The authority of Patriarch had never extended to the
government of temporalities of the Churches. By questioning the action
of the Patriarch and his undue interference in the administration of
Churches in violation of the 1995 judgment4, it cannot be said that the
Catholicos faction is guilty of repudiating the spiritual supremacy of the
Patriarch. The Patriarch faction is to be blamed for the situation which
has been created post 1995 judgment4. The property of the Church is to
be managed as per the 1934 Constitution. The judgment of 19954 has
not been respected by the Patriarch faction which was binding on all
concerned. Filing of writ petitions in the High Court by the Catholicos
faction was to deter the Patriarch/his representatives to appoint the
Vicar, etc. in violation of the 1995 judgment4 of this Court.
228.20. The 1934 Constitution is enforceable at present and the plea of
its frustration or breach is not available to the Patriarch faction. Once
there is Malankara Church, it has to remain as such including the
property. No group or denomination by majority or otherwise can take
away the management or the property as that would virtually
tantamount to illegal interference in the management and illegal
usurpation of its properties. It is not open to the beneficiaries even by
majority to change the nature of the Church, its property and
management. The only method to change management is to amend the
Constitution of 1934 in accordance with law. It is not open to the parish
churches to even frame bye-laws in violation of the provisions of the
1934 Constitution.

6

228.21. The Udampadies of 1890 and 1913 are with respect to
administration of churches and are not documents of the creation of the
trust and are not of utility at present and even otherwise cannot hold the
field containing provisions inconsistent with the 1934 Constitution, as
per Section 132 thereof. The Udampady also cannot hold the field
in view of the authoritative pronouncements made by this Court in the
earlier judgments as to the binding nature of the 1934 Constitution.
228.22. The 1934 Constitution does not create, declare, assign, limit or
extinguish, whether in present or future any right, title or interest,
whether vested or contingent in the Malankara Church properties and
only provides a system of administration and as such is not required to
be registered. In any case, the Udampadies for the reasons already cited,
cannot supersede the 1934 Constitution only because these are claimed
to be registered.

228.23. In otherwise episcopal Church, whatever autonomy is provided
in the Constitution for the Churches is for management and necessary
expenditure as provided in Section 22, etc.
228.24. The formation of the 2002 Constitution is the result of illegal
and void exercise. It cannot be recognised and the parallel system
created thereunder for administration of parish churches of Malankara
Church cannot hold the field. It has to be administered under the 1934
Constitution.

228.25. It was not necessary, after amendment of the plaint in
Mannathoor Church matter, to adopt the procedure once again of
representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. It remained a
representative suit and proper procedure has been followed. It was not
necessary to obtain fresh leave.

228.26. The 1934 Constitution is appropriate and adequate for
management of the parish churches, as such there is no necessity of
framing a scheme under Section 92 CPC.

228.27. The plea that in face of the prevailing dissension between the
two factions and the remote possibility of reconciliation, the religious
services may be permitted to be conducted by two Vicars of each faith
cannot be accepted as that would amount to patronising parallel systems
of administration.

228.28. Both the factions, for the sake of the sacred religion they
profess and to pre-empt further bickering and unpleasantness
precipitating avoidable institutional degeneration, ought to resolve their
differences if any, on a common platform if necessary by amending the
Constitution further in accordance with law, but by no means, any
attempt to create parallel systems of administration of the same
Churches resulting in law and order situations leading to even closure
of the Churches can be accepted.”

6. It is made clear to all concerned more so, to the Courts that in future

the violation of judgment and order to be viewed seriously. Let similar

matters which are pending be decided following aforesaid judgment and

7
order. There can be no further litigation as the decision in representative

suit is binding.

7. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal and the suit stand

disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in K.S. Varghese

(supra), which holds the field.

8. Let a copy of the order be circulated to all the Courts in Kerala, and

concerned authorities by Registrar General of the High Court of Kerala

forthwith. Let Registrar General submit a report to this Court as to how

many litigations are pending in the Court as to aforesaid dispute in the

various courts. Let the report be submitted within 3 months.

9. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed with aforesaid directions.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………………J.

[ARUN MISHRA]

………………………J.

[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 06, 2019.

8

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation