The court dismissed a second appeal as infructuous. It held that since the term of the church office bearers had expired, the reliefs sought in the underlying suit were no longer tenable, rendering the appeal unnecessary.
Second appeal dismissed as infructuous; parties directed to pending disputes in OP(C).No.286 of 2016.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/29TH MAGHA, 1937
RSA.No. 880 of 2015 ()
AS 159/2014 of SUB COURT, CHAVAKKAD OS 431/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1,3 TO 5, 7,8, 10, 11, 13 AND 14/PLAINTIFFS 1,3 TO 5, 7,8, 10, 11,13 & 15 :
1. M.C MATHEWKUTTY, AGED 68 YEARS,S/O. CHACKO, MEKKATTHUKULAM HOUSE, CHALISSERY POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. C.K. WILSON, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. KURIYAPPAN, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, NEPANS ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
3. P.M. CHARLY, AGED 46 YEARS,
4. FR. K.A. JOB, AGED 48 YEARS,
5. C.K. APPAPPU, AGED 72 YEARS,
6. C.K. PAVU,
7. M.C. CHUMMAR, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O. CHERU, MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE, PERINGODU POST,
8. P.C. BABY, AGED 67 YEARS,
9. M.U. KOCHUKUNJU, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. UKRU, MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE, KALLUMPURAM
RSA.No. 880 of 2015 ()
10. C.V. THARUKUTTY, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O. VAREEKUTTY, CHEERAN HOUSE, CHALISSERY POST OTTAPALAM POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT AND 6TH & 15TH RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT AND 6TH & 15TH PLAINTIFFS :
----------------------------
1. CYRIL MAR BASELIOSE METROPOLITAN, PRESIDENT M I S C, SABHA COUNCIL, S/O. KUTHOOR CHUMMAR, THOZHIYUR DESOM, POOKKODE AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 506.
2. E.T. CHERU,AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. THATHU, PANAKKAL HOUSE, WEST BAZAR, KUNNAMKULAM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 503.
3. REV. FR. P. BABU VARGHESE, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, PULIKOTTIL HOUSE, PAZHANJI THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 503. (RESPONDENTS NO. 2, 9,12 IN AS NO MORE)
R1 BY ADVS. SMT. DAISY A.PHILIPOSE
SRI.JAI GEORGE (CAVEATOR)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
R.S.A.No.880 of 2015.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2016.
J U D G M E N T
The above second appeal is preferred challenging
the decision in A.S.No.159 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Chavakkad.
by the defendant in O.S.No.431 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. The suit was one for a declaration that the election to the office bearers of the governing body of Malabar Independent Syrian Church ('the church' for short) held on 1.6.2008 is null and void and for other consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, a Receiver was appointed to administer the affairs of the church. Though the suit was decreed, the appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Some of the plaintiffs, who are aggrieved by the
RSA.No.880/2015.
2
decision of the appellate court, have thus come up in this second appeal.
as also the learned counsel for the first respondent.
the term of the office bearers of the governing body of the church is three years. According to the appellants, there were two elections after 1.6.2008 to the governing body of the church, one during 2011 and the other during 2014. According to the first respondent, there was only one election to the governing body of the church after 1.6.2008 and the said election took place during November, 2014. Whatever that may be, there is no dispute to the fact that the term of the office bearers of the governing body of the church elected on 1.6.2008 has expired long back. Since
the term of the office bearers of the governing body of the church elected on 1.6.2008 has already expired, the reliefs sought in the suit have become infructuous. Since the
RSA.No.880/2015.
reliefs sought in the suit have become infructuous, the appellants cannot be granted any relief in this appeal.
pointed out that there were disputes between the parties as to whom the administration of the church has to be entrusted by the Receiver appointed in the suit and the said disputes are pending adjudication before this Court in OP (C).No.286 of 2016.
In the circumstances, the second appeal is dismissed as infructuous, leaving the parties to agitate the pending disputes, in OP(C) No.286 of 2016.
Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR,
JUDGE.
Kvs/-
// true copy //
PA TO JUDGE.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal is maintainable when the reliefs sought in the underlying suit have become infructuous due to the expiration of the term of office bearers.
Whether the pending disputes regarding church administration in OP(C).No.286 of 2016 vitiate the dismissal of the current appeal.
M.C. MATHEWKUTTY
CYRIL MAR BASELIOSE METROPOLITAN
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
