Appellants appealed against a decree confirming the 1934 Constitution governs St. John's Church and its institutions. The High Court held that while the decree was consistent with Supreme Court rulings, disputes regarding the subsequent conduct of elections and member participation were beyond the scope of this specific appeal.
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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 24TH POUSHA, 1941
RFA.No.1 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 42/2003 DATED 26-11-2019 OF DISTRICT JUDGE, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/DEFENDANTS 7, 12 & 21:
1 REJI N.K., AGED 53 YEARS NADUMOLAYIL HOUSE, KUZHIYARA KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR, VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, SECRETARY, ST.JOHN'S HOSPITAL, KANNIYATTUNIRAPPU, PIN-682312
2 ELIAS AGED 44 YEARS S/O.PAPPY, PARAKULANGARA HOUSE, KIDANGAYAM KARA, KANAYANNUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682312
3 T.P.WILSON AGED 46 YEARS S/O.PAILY, THACHETH HOUSE, KOKKAPPILLY KARA, THGIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682305 BY ADVS.
SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) SRI.P.S.SYAMKUTTAN SRI.BIJU K. CHACKO
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFFS 1, 2 AND DEFENDANTS 1 TO 6, 8 TO 16,18 AND 23:
1 P.V.JOHNY, AGED 59 YEARS S/O.VARGHESE, OOMELIL HOUSE, KOKKAPPILLYKARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682312
2 N.G.GEORGE AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.VARGHESE, NADUVILAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOKKAPPILLYKARA, THIURVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN-682312
3 ST.JOHN'S ORTHODOX SYIRIAN CHURCH, KANNIYATTUNIRAPPU, KUZHIYARA KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR, PIN-682312
4 M.V.GEORGE, AGED 72 YEARS S/O.VARKEY, MUREEKKAL HOUSE, THALAKODUKARA, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682305
5 P.M.JOY AGED 60 YEARS
RFA.No.1 OF 2020
2
S/O.MANI, PADINJAREKUDIYIL HOUSE, KOKKAPPALLYKARA THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PN-682312
7 K.P.VARGHESE AGED 75 YEARS
S/O.PATHROSE, KOTTARATHUMALIL HOUSE, KOOKKAPPALLYKARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN-682312
8 M.Y.SAJU AGED 53 YEARS S/O.YOHANNAN, ADVOCATE, MALIECKAL HOUSE, KOKKAPPILLY KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, MANAGER, ST.JOHN'S HIGH SCHOOL, KANNIYATTUNIRAPPU, PIN-682312
9 JOY AGED 56 YEARS S/O.KOCHUKUNIU, CHELACHUVATTIL, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN-682312
10 YACOB AGED 51 YEARS S/O.KUNJAPPAN, KEELATH HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR KARA, THIURUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682312
11 BENNY PAUL AGED 46 YEARS S/O.PAILY, PATTULLIL HOUSE, THIURVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682312
12 P.V.KURIACHAN AGED 74 YEARS S/O.VARKEY, PUTHENVEETTIL, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682312
S/O.THOMMAN, KOLLAMKULATHIL KIDAMGAYAM KARA, KANAYANNUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682312
RFA.No.1 OF 2020
3
15 BABU AGED 51 YEARS S/O.VARGHESE, CHIRAPPATTU HOUSE, KIDAMGAYAM KARA, KANAYANNUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682305
16 V.M.POULOSE AGED 66 YEARS S/O.MATHEW, VAZHAKALAYIL, KANAYANNUR VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682312
17 GEEVARGHESE AGED 78 YEARS
S/O.YACOB, KOKKATTU HOUSE, KUZHTYARAL DESOM, THIURUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682312
18 JOHN.N.V. AGED 55 YEARS S/O.VARKEY KURIAKO, NEDUMOLAYIL HOUSE, KANNIYATTUNIRAPPU, KUZHIYARA.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682312
(PLAINTIFF NO.3 AND DEFENDANTS 9,19, 20 & 22 DIED DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT BELOW)
R3 & R6 BY SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE (CAVEATOR) SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P KURUVILA SRI.MANJUNATH MENON SRI.HANI P. NAIR SRI.HARIKRISHNAN S SRI.AJAI BEN JOSE
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA.No.1 OF 2020
4
J U D G M E N T
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the District Court, Ernakulam in O.S.No.42/2003. The District Court has decreed the Suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein and 3rd of whom has now deceased, in the following manner:-
“1. D2, D3 and D5 to D22 are removed from the posts of trustees, secretary and managing committee members of D1 church, manager of St. John's High School and secretary of St.John's hospital belonging to the church, by a mandatory injunction.
RFA.No.1 OF 2020
5
made clear that the further role of the commissioner is only the supervision of the election, which as per the 1934 constitution is to be done by the vicar. It is clarified and confirmed that the church and its institutions are liable to be governed under the 1934 constitution of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.”
this appeal impugning the judgment asserting that the directions issued by the District Court with respect to elections to be conducted to the Management of the Church in terms of the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church are contrary to the earlier directions of this Court as also the declarations by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fr.Issac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa v. St.Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church [2019 (4) KLT 1 (SC)]; and therefore, prays that the impugned judgment and decree set aside, with a consequential direction to the District court to dispose of the matter afresh.
RFA.No.1 OF 2020
6
aggrieved by the directions in the impugned judgment to have elections completed in terms of the 1934 Constitution to the Managing Committee of Church, they are concerned that the conduct of elections by the learned Advocate Commissioner appointed by it has caused deep distress and consternation to various persons including themselves, since they have not been allowed to take part in it. He says that, as is evident from the afore extracted portions of the judgment, the District Court has not made any specific provisions as to the manner in which the elections are to be conducted by the learned Advocate Commissioner, apart from saying that he will be guided by the earlier directions of this Court. He says that the directions in question appear to be those stipulated by this Court in W.P. (C)Nos.3497/2005 and 3720/2006 and says that even going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
P.M.A.Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma [AIR 1995 SC
2001], all members of the Parish, who owe allegiance to the 1934 Constitution, are entitled to participate in the elections. The learned Senior Counsel says that, contrary to this, more than 1600 members were not allowed to take part in the
RFA.No.1 OF 2020
7
elections that were conducted subsequent to the impugned judgment and decree because the Vicar of the Church, namely defendant No.4, had refused to offer them the sacrament in the form of a confession, even though they had filed their affidavits before the learned Advocate Commissioner declaring allegiance to the 1934 Constitution and offering to make such confession before the Vicar. The learned Senior Counsel then adds that, even though the District Court had, through its earlier interim orders, made provisions for the Advocate Commissioner to forward all such applications to the Vicar with a request to accept the confessions of the applicants, when the suit was decreed, all these directions were disregarded and that the Advocate Commissioner was allowed to conduct elections in any manner that he may choose fit. The learned Senior Counsel, thus predicates that the directions in the impugned judgment and decree certainly require to be modified by this Court and he prays that this appeal be thus allowed.
RFA.No.1 OF 2020
8
RFA.No.1 OF 2020
9
this appeal by Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, is that more than 1600 members have not been allowed to participate in the elections conducted subsequent to the impugned judgment solely because the 4th defendant - Vicar of the Church refused to offer them an opportunity to make confessions. I am afraid that this is not an issue that I can consider affirmatively in this appeal since, even going by the submissions of Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, it is obvious that the appellants are assailing the actions of the Advocate Commissioner subsequent to the impugned judgment and decree, which may perhaps offer them a fresh cause of action, but would not be a ground to seek that it be set aside.
RFA.No.1 OF 2020
10
fresh cause of action, as they may be advised.
In the afore circumstances and for the reasons above, I do
RFA.No.1 OF 2020
11
not deem it necessary to entertain this appeal and I therefore, dismiss it; however, without making any order as to costs on account of the rather peculiar circumstances that I have noticed
herein.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the affirmation of the 1934 Constitution for Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church maintenance and election procedure can be entertained despite non-participation of members in s
Whether non-inclusion of 1600 members in the voters list due to refusal of confession constitutes a ground to set aside the decree.
Whether the appellants can challenge the conduct of elections by the Advocate Commissioner in the current appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
REJI N.K.
ELIAS
T.P.WILSON
P.V.JOHNY
N.G.GEORGE
ST.JOHN'S ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Parties & counsel
