Disposed

Sajin Lal S.P. v. South Kerala Diocese

Kerala HC18 Feb 2016OP(C)/447/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to dispose of an original petition challenging a District Court order. The court observed that appellate courts can accept documents as affidavits rely on them indirectly and that the lower court's decision was not perverse.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to ensure loan is spent for the intended purpose and proper accounts are maintained.

Sajin Lal S.P. Vs South Kerala Diocese — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/29TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 447 of 2016 (D)

¶6

IA NO. 87/2016 IN CMA 125/2015 of DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS :

¶8

-------------------

¶9

1. SAJIN LAL S.P., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, PADMAVILASOM, ATHIYANNUR, ARALUMOODU.P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 123.

¶10

2. G.P. DEVAPRASAD, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.PAULIAH GABRIEL, JYOTHIS, ANCHALIKONAM PARASSALA.P.O., NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 502.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.HOOD SRI.AMAL KASHA

¶12

RESPONDENTS :

¶13

----------------------

¶14

1. SOUTH KERALA DIOCESE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY D.LAWRENCE, S/O.DASAN SECRETARY, SOUTH KERALA DIOCESE, LMS COMPOUND, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶15

2. D.LAWRENCE

¶16

S/O.DASAN, SECRETARY, SOUTH KERALA DIOCESE, LMS COMPOUND, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

¶18

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

OP(C).No. 447 of 2016 (D)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

P1:TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.1337/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶24

P2:TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A.NO.7459/2015 IN O.S.NO.1337/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶25

P3:TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS.

¶26

P4:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2015 IN I.A.NO.7459/2015 IN O.S.NO.1337/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶27

P5:TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN C.M.A.NO.125/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶28

P6:TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A.NO.87/2016 IN C.M.A.NO.125/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶29

P7:TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2016 IN C.M.A.NO.125/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J. ======================= O.P.(C) No.447 of 2016

¶35

============================

¶36

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2016

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents, the defendants in O.S No.1337/2013 of Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The former are members of the respondent South Kerala Diocese of Church of South India. In the suit they have prayed for a declaration that Clause 51(A) of the Election Rules of the Constitution of South Kerala Diocese is ultra vires to the Synod Constitution of the Church of South India and does not conform to the provisions in the Constitution of the South Kerala Diocese and that the election held on 15.08.2013 to

¶39

the Executive Committee as well as the Pastoral Board at the district level of the South Kerala Diocese is null and void. They filed Ext.P2 Interlocutory Application for restraining the respondents from taking loans pledging the property of the South Kerala Diocese. The learned Munsiff granted the prayer. By Ext.P7 impugned judgment the learned District Judge has set aside the order and dismissed the applications. This is assailed in this original petition.

¶40

O.P.(C) No.447/2016

¶41

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶43

Sri.T.B.Hood, and learned counsel for the respondents, Sri.Suman Chakravarthy.

¶44

Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India this Court

¶45

has only supervisory jurisdiction. Every error committed by the court below cannot be corrected in this proceedings. I have perused the impugned judgment. The learned District Judge has considered all the relevant facts. The judgment cannot be said to be perverse. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some documents were marked in the course of the appeal, which should not have been done. In an interlocutory proceeding decisions are taken on the basis of affidavits. The court actually acts upon affidavits. Documents only support the averments in the affidavit. So the appellate court cannot be found fault with for marking the documents for reference.

¶46

The respondents have already spent ` 5 Crores in setting up the institution referred to in the proceedings. Granting the injunction will prevent them from proceeding with the construction of the building. It will be detrimental to the interests of the members of the church. Learned counsel for the

¶47

O.P.(C) No.447/2016

¶48

¶49

petitioner Sri.T.B.Hood also submits that the petitioners do not want the respondents to stop the construction. They only want to ensure that the money is spent for the purpose for which the loan is availed. I think the submission is fair. The respondents will make sure that the money spent will be only for the purpose for which the loan was taken and proper accounts are maintained in accordance with the law of the church.

¶50

In the result, this original petition is disposed of directing the respondents to make sure that the loan obtained by them is spent only for the purpose for which it was obtained and proper accounts are maintained for the expenditure. The lower court shall comply with the direction in the appellate judgment for disposal of the suit.

¶51

Sd/K.ABRAHAM MATHEW , JUDGE

¶52

vdv/18/02/16

Sajin Lal S.P. v. South Kerala Diocese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajin Lal S.P. v. South Kerala Diocese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Koya Vs Basheer Ahammed

Joseph Joseph Vs Lukose Sacaria

Ajayasankar O.M Vs Kuttirishnan Ezhuthassan

V.K.Venu Vs Rajan

The Executive Officer Vs Kizhuveettil Goapalakrishnan Nair

Orippurathu Devi Temple Vs K.Thulaseedharan Nair