Dismissed

St. Thomas (Spg) Tamil Church Society v. the Church of South India Trust Association (Csita)

Telangana HC20 Apr 2023SA/12/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The suit was for declaration that defendants had no claim over church properties and for injunction directing tenants to deal only with the plaintiff. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings, dismissing both second appeals as they did not raise any substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

Both second appeals dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.

St. Thomas (Spg) Tamil Church Society Vs the Church of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

lJzrJ.l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT ATHYDE;rAq[or,";g3i^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA:1[.}

¶3

S.#"

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^DR. JUSTICE^{G.RADHA RANI}

¶7

SECOND APPEAL^{NOS:12 AND 64 0F 2019}

¶8

SA NO.12 oF 2019:

¶9

Appeal uFder Section^{100 of CPC against the Judgmentand decreedated} 31ttlot2o18 made in^{AS No.390f 2011 0n the file of the court of the xll Additional} Chief Judge, City Civil^{Court, Secunderabadprefened against the decree in OS} No.145 0f 1997 dated^{o2t11120100n the file of the cou( of the Xll Additionalsenior} Civil Judge,^(FTC), City^{Civil Court, Secunderabad.}

¶10

¶11

I J i	st. (Rl Th twe Th ..ii. I""g . , 1	en: omasISPG)^{Tamil ChurchSocicty'} N..z..r^{I,stationRoad' Secu.dtrabad} tti,t^{t,egatSecretaryEinsteinSamuel} ...Appettant/^{Appellant/Defendar^:} inOSNo'^14511997 AND TheChurch^{of SottthIndiaTrust Association(CSITA)} Acompanyincorporated^{underthe Indian} 3"*pi.i.i"e.,"ird havingits^{registered ()fficeatNo5'} WhitesRoad,RoyaPettah,Madras' ^{Rep.by its GeneratPov/ero[AtLorneys'} I a
	' ,	il Dr.B.vimal Sukumar, -' S/oRt.^{e",.B p Suganrlcr'agedaboi'rt4lycars'}. Treasurer^{churchoG''oti'india'DioccsiofMedaklnrl} Cplrlrrotaer^{ofC'St T-lt'prcmisesno-10-3--165'Diocesart} 5il;r,'-Oil^LancerLines, -Himmatllagar's(:sundcrabad- ^' 5OOO25'
I I i ! I ( I -t I I I t. I	. 2 3. 4. / '	iil Dr.K-Dayanand,^{S/oDr"K'BushalatmDavid'} "t' IntJ"Uo.lt sS^{years, l'aySecretaryCS[Medak Diocese'} 6"sioi""."^"^{"oflice,oldLancerLines'uirnrnatNagar'} Secunderabad-so0025' ' ..'."Respondent/^{PlaintilfinO-SNo'7451t'997} D. Pakiadas,^{S/o.S.N' Pakia':ias,} agedaboui⁷⁺Years,^Pensioner, Residcnt^{of PlotNo.32,} Railway^{Colonysituated atPicket'} Secunderabad^(died). Vincent^{Samuel,S/o-Salnuet,} Asedabout62Years,^Pcnsioncr-, ii]rl. zr-2,^{St. Thomas(Seti)churchcompound'} Station^{Road, Secunderabad'} SPSounder^{Rajan,S/o.S N Pakiadas'} Aeedabout69Years,^Busint";s, ii:ff;;:;;i it^{s,sit -,.t"4: t t Bholakpu r,secundcrabud(diccl) .} I I

¶12

	-.1) 1--,
	I⁽:,r(',.Ieagircr,li/o.P.Mr:ar1her, Ill ,:rlr:rt[^(rOyr:ars,Advo(jitlc, I Nr i)-.j 490/aI, situatc(l.rLThukar.rftr (;a(( A,)rri)!^..lirgLd.i,Sccundcrabrrd.(drcd)
	fu/:j.A(tncBuildt.rs, Repr,'sertr:dbyitspartncrA.M.L)ntanucl, Llusirrr:s;,li.NO.92-61/ I,
	SIu;lt(:(a_SD. I?oad. SecunCcrabad
r'- '	,..AipfuII)t(land GencralStores, Prr:rrr.st:No.Zl-{>/2to4atStationttoad, S..oLrnd(.a5a(1,relt by itslirol'essorGulamHusl .rin tfitrz.arulra Mukkadarn(dicd).	)
	HindrrsrrnPetroleum Limited 13O/l,SD.Road,Secundcrabad, wlrichispar{ir6(lp,r,, ol,.). StThorr as(SEG)Churchcorrpouncl, Oppo..,itc tof*rilwayStation, tjccund erabad.	I
	MaLhatanEmltorium, O-,ppositr:SzLnthoshHotel, StationRc,ad, Wtrichisrartand parcelo[S.:,.Thomas (SpG;CIrur,;tr Coupour d,OPpositetoRailuay Station,secund,:rabix.
lo,	S-k.^{(irll(.:trons,} O-pPosrtcianuroshHotel, St.rtionR.,ad, Whiclris)a:-tand parcelotSt.Thomas(SpG) Chrrt:hCr,rrrJ-,orrnc.l, OpJ,ositcoRaitwayStatiotr,i.,ccunclerabad-
11,/	Classtc Iir)t-r/earCentre, O..plrosiLciiatltioshHotel,Sta-.ion Road, WhrchsIartand parcelotSt.Thomas (SpG)Chrrrclrcr rn)()urd, Opl,osrret)lla.itwayStation, Sec.rnrl,.ri bld-
12/'	Sonv["(,oF,,eitrCentre, O..ppositcSrrr:thoshLodge,Sh.ionRoad, w'hi':hr;,rrr.ardparcer o[sLt'homasispc)churc]rco
	,orrrLa, Oppcsitrr-rFailway Station,SccunCcrabad.	I
i13	Ashok lioow(:ar, ()jp,,sir,:S rnLhtrshLodge,Sta,ionIioacl, \hr(lrr:.l,rrtand parcelo[St-.thornasispclChu:chCor,l,]rrd, ()pp,)sit,trRril,vayStarion,S..cunderabad.	I
t4	Kiddr'stiarrn,:nls, Opp,,.i,, li,nthosh Holl-I, prcnrisesNo?-l6/12, Stati,nl]oil,SecunderaLad Whiclr.ripirtandparcelofSt..Thomas(SpC)Chur.hC,,rrl,rrrrl, OPp',,i,t,rR,rilrnryStatron,Sr:cuncierabacl-
l5	Bhoj,,v,rrriEnterprises,
'	911{)o-^{SinrhoihLodge,Sro;;,-.n Road,}
[	,,,, wntc rr,1r.rtrnrlparcei olSl.thumas(SlrC) Churrh()onrl,,,n(1, ()pp,,.i,,.r' I?.iluiyStclion.S,currrlor.rbarl. .

\ \

t I

, . ^^i {rii .-

-'tl'J r'il

I 7

:.j (
<br>.L
0
I i Royal Bool(H,)Ltsc, sl'c^cl.rur.ll.c()nrlnrrnd,sr.r,,,r,Ir,,r, l, wnrchtspitrtanctn.l1..lutS,r.r,.,.,.,",:D,.,^,- opposireroRairwrr*,",,,,,,,,,,,'ll;l::i:i::",^Churchcompour,rr.
71 I SundaramFootwe.rr. SPGChurchCompound. :lP?i't.^{toRailwayslariont(o3d,} wnrcnISpartandnrrc(-lofSLTlromas(SpC)ChurchCompound, OpposltetoRailwaySlrtion,:,e(.unctcrihu(l '
Dosani Enterprises. StationRoad, Secun.ter^h..t Which,is partandp-..i "ii-,thomas(SpC) ;lXT:'..J[H"nd,^{opposire roRailway,sra-Jon,} 9 I
'12../AnandHosiery, $tation^{Road, Secundcra}bad
i I, , Which ispart andparc churchcompou"d'.o":l^:l^{s'Tlromas(sPGl} S."underabai.^{.._,_pposrte toRailway Slation,}
29,,-R.K..GoldenWatch and I(adiUCornl)any, ' L9,:.-"^{Road,Secunderabart,} WhichispartandDarc church compou.,o'o..tl^?l ^{ttrhomas(SPC)} S."urO.=UJl-..*,^{_pposr er.RailwayStation,}
2)-R.C-N.TravelinsGoods StationRoad,Secunderabad, .Whichis partandDarce .church compour,,i.ooo'^"1."'. 'lhomas(sPG) Secundembad.^{..osrte tol<ailwayStation,}
.2/ Narayarla parr Shop, Near-RailwayStationRoad,Secunderabad. which isparana"".".r,is,.1:ir"_"1"t1?q ChurchCompound', oo Secunderaba.l^{.posltetoRailwayStation,}
23-Durga TeaStall, '' gppositebAlphaHotetsr^i;^-D^^r^ q/hicr,.ii#;ffi;:.iilifi,[.i:!?$3;0"o,o, , 3i:Tlf".#fund,opposite^{toRairway'6taiion,}
24.A.S.^panShop, 2,'-Opposite to Alphal{otel,Near RaitwaySration, Secunderabad,Which is part and.parcelofii.ifromas1SeC1 Church Compound, oppositetot.tailway Staf ion, .- Secundeiabad
Sai Baba Opposite Laundry, to Alpha Hotel Near RailvrayStation, 25 ,"
l
I <br>" ** *
.;r#i{li-- - .::. ..<ia;

¶21

I
,

¶22

	i I I U/hrr:hrsJ),rI:rII(l;rarceloISr-'l'lrrrrDr'.;(l I'(]l
i	(lhLrcltCorirpotrt-rd,oppositclo ll.rl$,.r]' lltirti( S';'crrnd(:r:-tt)a⁽I
	l
	I)lc(:an Wal(:hCompa[y, Orp,rsite toAtpha Hotel,NearRailwayStation S<:cunderabad, Whichispartand parcelofSt.Thomar; (SP(i) Cirur-chCompound, opposite toRailway Stati:) St,cunderabzrd- i
)s	Atrdul andAltarFlower Merchaut, ()l)positetoAlphaHotel,NearRailwayStatior,,
	Secunderabad, W'rich ispartand parcelofSt.Thomas(SI,Ci) )lLur-chCompound, oppositetoRailwarStati();r iecunderabad.
')t)	rr,:mSports, )prpositctoAlphaHotel,NcarRailway tltalic,r, :ie:underabad, Vlrichispar1.and parcelofSt.Thomas(SPG) )hurchComPound, oppositetoRailwalStati(,I le,;lurderabad.
()	ititrWatch Company, lelresentedbyitsProprietorMd,Rafiuddin, )pposite toAlphaHotel,NearRailwayl]tation ier:underabad, fiLichispartand parcel otSt.Thomas(SPG) r)hurchCompound, oppositeto RaitwayStation, i;ct:underaba<1.
t1 I I	I^'o(,1WearShop, ()pccsite to Alpha Hotel,NearRailwayStatron, Iecunderabacl, /hichispartand parcel ofSt.Thomas,SpG) (hrrrchCompound,opposite toRailway Statio r, Ir:cunderabad.
\2 l.	!ulrhash HairStyles, (pptisitetoAtpha Hotel,NearRailwaySlation, S:cunderabad, !'hrchispartand parcelofSt.'lhomas(SPG) (hrrrchCompound, oppositetoRaih,layStation -':cunderabad-
1., '/ .-/J	,F.[irmountFancyStores, P^-ernisesNo.7-310,OppositerJoAlphalloiel RailwayStation, Secunderabad,

{

i':, L.

{
ffi hichis partandparcelol:lt^'l'lrom:rs(Sl)(l) ChurchCompound, opl)osirc toIlaillval.SL.ition, Sccundcrabad.
3).:OmegaGencralStorcs, ' PremisesNo-73-ll,Opposrte toAlph.r flotel, StationRoad,Sccunderaba(l	,
35. SreeV.L.Stores, FremisesNo-7-3-13,OppositctoAlphal{orel, RailwayStation,Secunderabad, Whichis partandparcelofSt.Thomas(Spc) ChurchCompound, oppositeLoRaitwa)'Sralion, Secunderabad.	t
36 J.Durgaiahand Brothers, PremisesNo.7-3-13,GeneralMerchantStarionRoad, Secunderabad.
y. SriGaneshRarnSweetHousc, PremisesNo.7-3-l3/I,opposirelonlphaHok.l, StauonRoad,Secunderabad.
NobleCollections, FremiiesNo. 7-3-13/1,OppositeroAlph:r Hotel, StationRoad,Secunderabad
99.^{NatiorialPlasticStores,} Premises No.7-3-13/2,situatedatOpposiLetoAlpha Hotel, .StationRoad,Secunderabad.
,o:^{r'AlphaEnterprises,} .PremiSes No.7-3-7312, situated ar OppositetoAlphaHotel, StationRoad,Secunderabad.
Rekha:GeneralStores, l*-iq.: No.7-3-13lD,situare.l ar OppositetoAlphaHorel, StationRoad,Secunderabad. :
Balajibvfee-t, Prcmis;asNo.7-3-13/5,Opposite toAlphaHoLel, 'StatioriRoad, Secunderabad-
'BombayLodge, PremisesNo.7-3-13/H(Second Floor), OppositetoAlphaHotet, -^{StationRoad, Secunderabad.}
HotelSanthoshladgeandResLaurant, 'Premises No.7-3-13(firstFloor), OppositetoAlphaHotet, StationRoad, Secunderabad.
A.lBookCentre, PremisesNo.7-3-13/6(Second Floor), ..OppositetoSPGChurchCompounC, StationRoad, Secunderabad. 5	l t

¶27

¶28

				Ers'	r*e{
			1')^. (	b I
		\|
				;(t	-AI
		tti,	i,)LI 'rrt(ll:(		(c
			; , .. 'r,rr:,r:;No t:.1316.	,	()t
			,)j),)irl(to.^.l1tiraljriLcl, ilt li1	(r0. I	Sr
			r)()rr(),r(,Sct:r-rrrclcri:rbaci	t.	(G
	\|17	l,:rllrrrrr[.'ootu,crrr,	I	0l
			1)r,'rr;,r:r; No.7il13/8,tjcsideSPCemete-yCorrJxunr, lil '	6)	H(
	i		.r11,,111n,.1,Sccrrndeiabad.
	I	,1E	I'r,r Jli{()r('s:rrtrlBakery,		N€
			I'rcr)r^jos.No7313/9,		Sc
			Itr':CrsljI'GCemetery Compound, '	62
			:., Il(,INu;rd,S,:cundcraLlad.		As
					Na
	(	19	l'r,'l:',tut(si,rrrlRakcry.
			I'rr,ri:;r:sNo.7 3-13/9,BesidcSPGCemet,rryCornl:ourd, ..,rrrrtl.'oad,S,.,urrdercbad.	I	As Na
					Sb
		:ro	I.l.Srrrcs(.Iagar), l	I
			Ir,rrr.,sNo./:'il:l/q,BcsidcSPGCemetr'ry Corrp.rrrd. .Il,,rlio;rrl,S,,urrdcralrad.	()*	v1 No
		Ll	(.1-,.rirco[r,Prathiba Apartments,		oI
			lflrrlNo103lstlrloor StationRoad
			, ,, (lpp,s1ctoSt.PatrikHigh School,.Secunderbarl	fr	Si .No
		:;)	\r,rrhSi<ldiqui,Ztepoin	,PremisesNo.9-4-52
			rrrrl)1li2and9-4-53TeaNSnacks DiniogHaIt		.
			, ,, tl,.:i1,.,NavodcyaLodge,	66-	st
			()pt))silctoRzrilwayStation Secunderabad		N;
			,		oi
		53	lirrrrtirBalajr Mit.hai BhandaraidSweets, I'rcris:sNo!l451Bid Ndld	67	d;
			. ,eses avoayaagc, ()l)l)srtcto RailwayStaLion, Secunderabad	,,.	Nr oi
		:.,4	lirrrrt[.Balaji Travels,	'68
			IIlrrrs:sNo 94-51Besides Navodaald	. _
			,. ,,y,oge, ()t)lnsiLc toRailway Station,Secunderabad.		Pi
					O1
		1i.i.	;\1;rn h:rToursan<1Travels,
			llcrrrs(isNo.94-52a];ld9-4-52/ABesides NawodryrLodc	69.-	B(
			, g,		Fi S.
		5t)	Nrrv:laa
			y[,odgc, f^,rcrrrs<,st\o.d-qZD(FirstandSecondFloors)	70	PP
			, (JrIrr;ircro Railu,eLyStation,Secunderabad.	/t	PT C(
		t/	lirillb Oticals		.:
I		:.:	turp, l)rt rrrsts I\o.9 4:l12(GroundFtoor)ofNavodayaLo,:rge,	7r-	Vi
			(,'l,,il(It-'llurlway Siation,Sccunderabad.		Pr SI
I i I			:^.rl,rl,.rt:tI)/ISt)Burrk,		Ol
			(riorrrrflror)of Navodaya Lodge,
			rilrctollarlway Station, Secunderabad () )1,(		Ir
I					PT
			;:

¶29

¶30

	a 0l
5?- .	Asian^{'lottrsand l'fa/cllers,} (Ground^{Ftoor),Navodayat.odgcBuildrn;','} '.bppositctqlaitwayStaLion,^{Sccun'ler:1l)arl}
60- '/'	Sri^{KrishnaSweets,} lGround^{Fto6rJNavodayaI.'-rdgrBurldrn''} bpposirc^{to RailrvayStation. S'currdetaUrd}
6I- -'- I	Hotel Gem, V.g.trii-,^{Non-Vegetarian andNorthInclian (CcllarPortion)} Na"vodaya^{LodgeBuitding,Oppositeto llail\r.ayStaLion'} Secunderabad.,
..,ldz -i,rqf-, ''i'' :'i,! ' 63, .11 , { 1 I	.n"irn^{Exple.ss,!e4,} -'Navodava Ilaageeuilding,opposite to[lailwayStaLion ' IS".rttderaPhd:,- ,^,.r., , II AsianTeaStores, ^{:'Nauodayalodge}Buitding,oppositeto^{Railway Station,} Secunderabad. a , <br>\|
I.;- :.'l:.'i :iF. ',--'l'.?' I I	Vaishnavi.'Bihavani^Travels, No.^g-42l2lB/^{l,BehindNavodayaLodg"} iopposite to'nailway Station,^Secunderahad 0I -Sri Jalaram;Triwe.ls, \No.^g-4-2.lilBtt;Behind^{Navodavat'odge,} 'Opposite td'RailwayStation,Secunderabari
9- <br>	SupretheTravels, ni'^g-+-zlztat^{z,BehindNavodavaL'odge'} opposite-to.Railway^{Station,Secunderabad} \ \|
i,.i: i' -.:167^. i.i{ ii+ ,\i.64- .fitr.	.sriSai BabaTours and^Travels, .-.No.^g-4-2li;tB+,BehindNavodaya^Lodge, 'Opposite^{tg;RailwayStation,Secunderabad} :BearrtYElectria^HairDresses .;':,ffi#ft:;.i-rd;;i;r,spc^{cirrsFiighschoorconpound'} .Opposite tolRaiiway^{Station,Secunderabad-}
69. :r' . .ri t_li li I I I	-^{Bombay LaundrY,} Pre-i"g"No.9-.i-138^{to9-l-142,sPGGirts High} ibh;C"*p"ot^{a,oppositetoNlanoharTalkies'Secunderabad} PanShoP, Premises^No.9-^{1'la8and142,SPGCirlst{ighSchool} ...^Qompound,^{OPPoSitetoManoharTalkies, Secunderabad}
i t. 7> i I I	2, - Vijay^{GeneralStores,} Premises^{No.9-1-138alrdi4} SPcci.t"High^{Schoolcompound,'} Opposite^{to Manohar Talkies,Secunderabad-} .t s ijaySTD, PG GirlS Higlir^{schbolCorhPound,} PremiseS.Nti-^{9:l-L38ao:di42,} +l /- +-..!--,.i

-l

rr:ri ,'i i t-l;lrroll;rr I rllllr:s^{ll' {'_rDderabad}

¶36

'i . i)t,: L i"^{qoa ill),} 'l^I . ; \ |;,r,,, il,,r^{:illil(laiilln,} lllISINIr:l-^I ./r II No I Iriil/l, ,;itirrric'c I I^(l ,1.,,,,, 1,, r'r rrss Iirerls,^Hyderabad- l-csl r:^{(l orl r;:.} roc. al--.ilt^,15 .r'c:rr:;, S7r;. V.l,^(iomex, llus it'rr..^{l/ r'l{No} 'r^tl:)()/:l' I ll.lrarjr tir,t^{lo rcl. Slt , ttrtrlcr rrblril}

¶37

ll.sJ).ndents/ Respond|ots/^{D 3[' nd' rlts}

¶38

lA NO: 1 oF 2019

¶39

pfop lr)jl,t in re a(:co' tssLl( \ Llre f \ f,,1", t_

¶40

/ Petition un,Je {;ection^.t 51 of CpC praying th:rt in :h() c rcumstances stated in the affidav t^.iled herein, the High Court may be pt e.rse(l to stay the Judgment and Deore ) in A.S.No.39 of 2011 on the file of the ).ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Cou 1 at Secunderabad, by reversing the Jud( lrr,ent and Decree in O.S.No.145 of lgtt dated 02-11_2010 on the file of the X[ Additional Senior .1q15fipivil Judge, SecunCe al)ad, H^1ti

¶41

¶42

tA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶43

Petition under^r )r,ier 1 Rure 10 R/w. section 1s1 cpc prayin(r that in the circumstances staled n the affidavit filed herein, the High cour: rray be pleased to permit the petitione t,r implead as party respondent No.75 tc flre {iA No.12 of ''f! l';,:;i 2019 and in miscellan )ous petition ,i,"i:'if,#"ilife;, r ilfh;il;r^-'Pi. r' Pgii1r,1, .ir,}lilir,r.rq .?,.,ttri . -, -.t

¶44

For the Appellant : SF I SURESH SH|V SAGAR, Advocate

¶45

For the Respondent N r. I : SRt D.V.SEETHARAMA MURTHY, SI:NtOFl COUNSEL REPRESET TtNG SRt MAMtDt AV|NASH.REDDy, Advo<;ate

¶46

For the Respondent N rs.14 to 17,20,21,33, 35 to4i,52,53, 55 arrd i,0 : SRI D.MADHAVA RAO, Alvocate

¶47

For the Petitiorters in tA No.2 of 2019 : SRI K.SAI KR|SHNA,,MOH/\N, Advocate Other Respondents : I ONE APPEARED

I
I
I

r'i*,':, .:.,. i"'+ sA No.6l oF 2otg fr6t$:^.i ffi^{,,3..,s{frf.uq,}

¶54

Appeal under section 100 of cpc against the Judgment and decree dated 3111ot2o18 made in AS No-4 ot 2011 on the file of the court of the xil Additionat chief Judge city civir court, Secunderabad preferred against the decree in os No.145 of 1997 dated o2l11l2o1o on the file of the court of the Xll Additional senior Civil Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Secunderabad. --.^-------------zF-' 1----St. Thomas^{(SPG)'lamilChurch Socicty,} R/o-H.No- 7- 1- I, Station^{Road, Secunderabad} Through its^{l-egal SecretaryEinstein Setmuel}

¶55

Appcllant/ Appcllatt,/^{Dcfcndan t} in O.S.No. l45l 1997 AND

¶56

I The Church^{of South Southlndia. Trust TrustAssocirri-i:::t(CSl'[A)} A company incorporatcd company incorporatcd^{undcrthc lndiarrlndiarr} / Companies Act and having Act and having and having having its^{rcgistcrcdofficc at No.s,at No.s,} i Whites Road, RoyaPettah,^'I:.rdras, ,l Rep. by its Gerieral Power by its Gerieral Power its Gerieral Power Gerieral Power Power^{o[ Attorncys,} I

¶57

.f,::..:;-:.-: I The Church of South South lndia. Trust Trust Associrri-i:::t (CSl'[A)
''-,:;-. ' A company incorporatcd company incorporatcd undcr thc lndiarrlndiarr
/ Companies Act and having Act and having and having having its rcgistcrcd officc at No.s,at No.s,
i Whites Road, RoyaPettah, 'I:.rdras,
iiitr ,l Rep. by its Gerieral Power by its Gerieral Power its Gerieral Power Gerieral Power Power o[ Attorncys,
r!l&1{.ii#r I
'!I-*::- i). Rt. Rev- Rev- B.P. Sugand-lr, S/o. Christudas Christudas Bishop
-:gi in tl..e Diocese tl..e Diocese Diocese of Mcdak Mcdak of Church cf Scuth Church cf Scuth
aged about 53 Years53 YearsYears
#'a1g,
.I. Manohar, Manohar, S/o. J.R. Mich?icl,
aged about 53 ycars, Trcasurer,
..i Medak Diocesc, Dioccsc Dioccsc Officc,
oid Lancer Lines, Secunderabad
i
I ......Respondent / Plairrtiff Plairrtiff in O.S.No
D. Pakiridas, S/o. S.N. Pakiadas,
t Aged abbut 74 yea.rs, Pensioner,
I Resident of Plot No.32,
Raitw.ry'Colony situated at Pickct,
l
i I Sectrnderabad (died).
I
iIt 3 VincenL Samuel, S/o- Samuel,
Aged about 62 ycars, Pensionor,
)
ll.No.7-1-2, St. Thomas (SPG) Church Compound,
$ 1I Station , Secunderabad
I
I

¶58

i). Rt. Rev- Rev- B.P. Sugand-lr, S/o. Christudas Christudas Bishop
in tl..e Diocese tl..e Diocese Diocese of Mcdak Mcdak of Church cf Scuth Church cf Scuth India,
aged about 53 Years53 YearsYears
.I. Manohar, Manohar, S/o. J.R. Mich?icl,
aged about 53 ycars, Trcasurer,
Medak Diocesc, Dioccsc Dioccsc Officc,
oid Lancer Lines, Secunderabad
......Respondent / Plairrtiff Plairrtiff in O.S.No r45/1997

:.lir i n

( I
I
( I
!i
I
r F
;

(

i=. rf, +r c. t t\ lI

¶64

( +i;* -'1 rl,l t. .5 r:.{ :il's.r, ,t! I ttF.:, .t Si So rrr lr:r Rajan, S/cr. S N I,,r!<i;rrlas, Arlr d r lr:. rl^(i!rl,car S, lJusirrls:., ; .s,[. ' II ro r, J61/19, Sirrr:rir:rJ;rr Iilr{)lak r €,rtr. Sc( rr ri. Jt t t[].id ;.fcl' r i: Lc:^j, . \lr ,1,1r.,. i/^ I' l\1r.rglr,.r, . i1nR,,i.,l , I rO y,.-r1s, p.dvo(Jri., t-tI IJ 1.,r. 0 , ,t9O/:, srtuirted at^.l.lru karaiir' Ga Noi l h L:rl. lgrrd:r, Secuncicrab:rcl 6 M/r; r'r rl Ituilders, (' I?eprcl;r.Dl 'd l)] its partncr A.M. Iimanuel, (, Sil-r alr:-l I Si.D Road, Sccur rdcr.:rbad. I 7 Alplra lloL I;rnrl (]encral Storr:s. I I Prerrrist s I ct 7 1-6/2 Lo 4 at Stalion Road, Secunrl^.r; l)ad, rcp lry i: s lrrofr:ssor Gulam Ilussatn Bar;r,rlrllr; Ivf ullkadlrm (clir:d] 8 Hirtri ust ir rr Pr.trolcunr I-intited 130,'1,^j L Iload. Sr:cu r.r d cra [)il(I, which is part a]rd ltarr:r,l of St. l'hrrrrrar (llP(]) Church compound, ()pp,)srl'i l( Railway Station, Scc L.rr rdcrabad. 9 Mah rrarrr l ,n;I)ortum, Oppr)srlr: ll rn Lil(rslr IJote l, Statiort itoad, lVhrt lr r 1,, rl and p.rrceL o[ ti l' Thomas (SpG) Churcb Comportrrrl (. ppositc to Railway Statron, Sccundcr abad. ) 10 S.K^(lollrr r IOIIS, Oppc,silr sl, nr hosh Hotel, Stalion Road, I Whiclr is p; ,1 and parcel ol St. 'flr{,mas (SFG) Chrrrch C,)rot,lrnd, Oppor;itc t,r R: rillvav Slal ion, Sccr rndcrabaci. 11_ Classic I,oo w.:at Cc, t lre, ( Oppositr: Sz rtlrosh Hotcl, Sta trol I l<oad, Whic)r i:; 1>,r ,1^{:lI parccl.oISl.Thomas (SpG)ChLirchcorpcunr.,} Oppositr:^(o l<^j,l lway Sl ation, Secu! rd(-r llc rrl ) t2 Sony lroolvr ar CenLrc, I ,O.-ppo..rit('^{Sa rl 'loshLodge,Station Road,} . Whiclr is pir t .rn(i parcel o[ St. lhomas ispGl Church - com - )o ]n(1, ) Oppo;itr: t(, lail,,ay Station, Secunderabad.^' .- 13 Ashol: [,'rllrtt etrr-, g.ppo.^{ril., Sa} rttro:;h Lodgc, Station Road, .;i. .' Whiclr is l)ir L irn(l ,arcel of S[. Thomas iSpG) ,Church _. -- Corn]o r,.1,-" Oppor;itr to taihray Station, Secundc."U1O.' , L4 Kicldl, r;^(iar r re Il ts,, Oppor,rtr: Sir rtlrosh Hotei, prcmises No T-.1;6/ 12*. I S talion Ii ra< . :lc( undcral,ad r# .i , Whicl ir; lr r : l:^{p:::.1,rf St. Thomas (S3e)ichurcrre,rmlroUrrt} C)ppolir lr ) lo a 1w,y :;latr4n, Scctrrrdcrabdtl::, ii r ' '.!li ir.' 1:f{'t .-r,A). Co ,q,,i* d :i\raltr {

¶65

I t

¶66

		,:-t I .--:
	15	[3trolirvanrlirtrct^prises, Opposite Santhosh^[-odgc,Station^Road, Whichisparta1ldparcclotSt.^{'lhomas(SPG)Church Conpound,} Oppositeto^{RailrvayStation,Secunderabzrd.}	t ,
(	16 I It(	RoyalBook^House, SPGChurch^compound,Station^Road, Whichispart^andparcelof^{St. Thomas(SPG)ChurchCompound,} Opposrtcto^{Railt!'ayStation, Secundcrabad-} Sundaram^Foots'ear, SPGChurchCompotrnd, Oppositeto^RailwayStation^Road, whiihispartandparcelofSt. Thomas^{(SPG)ChurchCompound,} OppositcloRaitwayStation,^{Sccunderabad.}
	1FI	Dosani Enterprises, Station Rbad,Secunderabad, Whichispartand^{parcelo[St-Thomas(SPG)} -church^{compound,OppositetoRailwayStation,} Secunderabad.
	9I	AnandHosiery, Station Road,Secunderabad, Whichispartand^{parcelofSt. Thomas(SPG)} ChurchCompound,^{oppositetoRailwayStation,} Secunderabad.
	Io	R.K.Gotden^Watchand^{RadioCompany,} Station Road,^{Secunderabad,} Whichispaitand^{parcelofSt.Thomas(SI!)} ehurchComporthd,^{oppositctoRailwayStation,} Secunderabad.
	12r	K.G-N.Traveling^Goods, Station Road^Sccunderabad
	)	,^, Whichispartand^{pa-rcet ofSt. Thomas(SPG)} ChurchCompound,^{oppositetoRaili'ayStation,} Secundcrabad-
	22t	Narayana PanShop, NearRdilway Station^{Road, Secunderabad,'} Whichis^{partajtdparcelofSt. Thomas(SPG)} Church'^{Compound, oppositetoRailwayStalion,} Secunderabad.	't
\|	DurgaTcaStall, Oppositeto^{Alpha Hotel,StationRoad,Secunderabad,} Whichis^{partandparcelo[St. Thomas(SPG)} Church Compound,^{oppositetoRailwayStaticn,} Secunderabad.	I
V	24	A.S.PanShoP, Oppositeto^{AlphaHotel'Near RailwayStation,} SJcunderabad,Which^{ispartandparcelofStThomas(SPG)} Church Compound,^{oppositetoRailway Station,Sgg:lrndcrabad} i'<br>?6 P	( ( ,

I I

! t.l rl

	./..'	lirrIl;rlr;rl,ilrlll(lr. Olrl)oliltc ioAli)h:lIloLcl.Nc^rr S,r1)Lrr)(l(trl)tlrLd, \ilrrclrrsIrarLart(i l)arcelo[:]1 (llrLir(lr(1,)n1l)orrrrti. opp,:tstt' S,:t-rrrrrlr:tirbacl- li,!l.r; ],SrrtrorI 'llrr,rrLrr;(il'(i) lrIlir.,,r\ ililll()lt,
	26	SriRarnS'lD/lSI) C)pl)osrtctoAlpl)aIIotcl,Ncir Sr:crrndr:rabad, Whir:hisparl:rrld [)ilrcelo[.]t ChurchCompound.oPposlll St:cundcrabad. lliril,.ry S;ltroll. 'I'ltrrr.r;(iI'>C) l(I.l.1^{.,a_</sup>ltati()n,}
	27 (	DeccanWatch Company, OppositetoAlphaIlotcl,NcrrR:rilrirySralion, Sccunderabad,
		Whichispartand p:rx:clofStTh(niis(jI'G) CirurchCompround,opposit,-t.(,[.lai ,,ayiLzrtion, S<:r:rrnclcrabad.
	I ²⁸	AbdulandAltar I.lowcrMcrhirn(, OpposrtetoAlptraIIotel,NerrIiail!.ryS(atron, Sccunderabad, Which ispartarrdp:rrcel ofJt.^'lhcrnrs(liPG) ChurchCompound.oppositrtoliailrray itation, Sr:cundcrabad.	tcI
	I	Pre[rSports, OppositctoAlpha l{ote[,Ne,Lrlialllva/Station, Secundcrabad, Whichispart andparcelof St.^'ltrcn.rrrs(liPG) ChurchCompound.opposittto Rallrrayiiration, Sccundcrabad.
	30	Star Watch Company, Ropresented byitsPr.)priet.rMd.!iaiudIn, OppositetoAlphallotel,Ne:rrl.,ailuarStatron, Secunderabad, WhichisparLarldparcelofSt.^'ltLonrrrs(lil)G) ChurchCompound,opposit,)tollaI\ayljtation, Sccundcrabad.	om orl
I	p1- 1	Foot Wear Shop, Opposite toAlphallotel,NeirrRaih/a-/Strtion, Secunderabad
I		, Which ispart andparceloflit.'t'lioorrLs(!iPG) ChurchCompound,opposit,.toRalr,iay:ltation, Secunderabad.
	2 r	SttbhashHairStylcs, OppositetoAlphaHotcl,Ncirrllai[.'ir,,Strtion, Secunderabad, Which is partandparcclo[lit.'ihorLLs(i;pG) ChurchCompound,opposit(,t()Jialu,ay :;tatiorr, Secundcrabad.
I I		ca
f		_

¶72

¶73

¶74

I \ Paraunount liilnc-v Storcs, t Prernises No-^'/ 3 IO, Oppositc^{to Alpha Hotel,} / Near Rhih,r,ay Station, Secunderabad, , Whiclr is part ald parcel of^{St. Thomas (SPG)} Church Compound, opposite^{to RailwayStation,} Secunderabad. a4 Omega General Stores, Premise s No- 7-3- I 1, Oppositc^{to Alphal{ote I,} Station Road, Secunderabad. 5 Sree V-1,. Stores, e Premises No. 7-3-13, Opposite^{to AlphaHbtel,} Railway Station, Secunderabad, Which is part and^parcel of^{St. Thomas (SPG)} Church Compound, opposite^{to RailwayStatron,} Secunderabad. J-Durgaiah and Brothers, I Prcmises No. 7-3-13, General Merchant Station^Road, t Secundcrabad. rl Sri Ganesh Ram Sweet House, l', Premises No. 7-3- 13/ I, opposite to Alpha Hotel, Station Road, Secunderabad. I pB Noble Collectionr;, \ Premises No. 7-3-13/ I, Opposite to Alpha Hotel, Station Road, Secunderabad. (3e ( Premises No.7-3-73/2, siruated at Oppoiite to Alpha Hotet, ( Station Road, Secunderabad. I (oo Alpha Enterprises, .Fremises t:li. z.-s-ts1Z, situated at OppoJite to Alpha Hotel, Station Road, Secunderabad. II 14t Rekha. General Stores, : Premises No. 7-3-13/D, situated at Opposite to Aipha Hotel, Station Road, Secunderabad( 42 Balaji Sweel, Premises No. 7-3-13/5, Opposite to Alphd Hotel, Station Road, Secunderabad. II 43 Bombay todge, Premises No. 7-3-13/H (Sccond Floor), Opposite to Atpha Hotet, Station Road, Secunderabad. a i / 44 Ilotel Santhosh Lodge and Restaurant, ' Premises No. 7-3-13^(hrst Floor), Opposite to Alpha Hotel, on Road, Secunderabad I e V I tr'b rrti-.;+-....-{

il !{

t- l

) fEF,.-@f ir )r ,HIl ; I 'i t I

¶80

¶81

	A= I	A.Illool(^(lnlr.c, PrcrnscsN:' 3-i3/6iScco[cll"ioor), Oppo:iteioll'GCtrur-<;1rCotnl-,orirrcJ. SLifli(nFlo.rl,Scr:undc:r.rir:-rd		t I
	46	Bookl)ararlse. PrenrisesNr i 3i3/5, OppoijitetoAl:rhaI{otcl, Sl-at1cnIio:rL,lecunderabad
	47	Lakn:ni^t(xtuear, Pre:uisesNr.7-3-1.3/13,ElesideSI'CcmetcryCompourrd, Sta[ionRoal, tiecunderabarl.
	4B	PremSto.esard:fficry, Premises Nc.T3-13/9, Bcsidr:sSP(CemeteryCompound. StationRoa,,liecunderaltad-		, ,
	49	PremStoresarLdBakery, PrcmisesNc7-3-13/9,BcsidcSPGCernetery Compounc[, StationR,la(,Iiccundcrabad.
	50	R.K.StorostJagarJ, PremisesNo7313/9,BesideSPG Cemetery ComJ)ourr(, StationRoar.<iecunderabad.	(
	51	C.S...Lrco):,'rathibaApartmcDts, Fiat Nr;.1Oiil'tFloor, SlationRoad,		I
		Oppositer-ollt.Patrik l{ighSchool,.Secunderbad.	/
	52	AyeshSiddirui7*epoinL,Premises No.9-4-52 and9-4'.52znc9-4-53,TeaNSnacks,DiningI{aJl, BesidesNrvrdryal-odgc,	(
		Opposrte {oI:ailwayStatiorr,Securlderabad.
	l.r.)	Srinath BalaLX4ithaiBhalctarandSweets, Prentst$IrIo.9,4-5 1, Besides Navodr[a..i.odge, OppoaitetoIaitwayStation,Secundffabad.	/
	4 <br>p	SrinathBa.la, i^'Iravels,
		Premisesllo.9-4-51Besides NavodayaI-odge	1
		, , Oppositetc Iai]way Station,Secunderabad_
	8S	AjarrthaTour;andTravels,
		Premis,:sllo.9-7-52 and9.452/A,Besides NavodalrLLodgo,
		Opposircr., Ftilway Station, Secundcrabad.
	I156.	Navodaya-orqe.
t \|<br>i	Prcmis:sllo..)I212{FirstandS"condlrloors), Opposi'er,rti.rilwayStalion.Sc(underabad.	I
		^{i t}
I	[z.t I	^{srBara cp :a s,} 'Prcmis,'slo)'212(GroundFloor)ofNavodaaLdl
	.. \r	.. + yoc, Opp,,sieL('RrilwaVSlation,Secunderabad.		t
-				I
/.\|			I
i ,
				I
I		co	^Fft
		t -^{.,,-.s,;*d4;ii;{:}	fuo ir:.t-.,	L

¶82

co fuo^Fft -^{.,,-.s,;*d4;ii;{:} i r:.t-.,

¶83

¶84

rl1-

¶85

		(
	58	Sr-iB;rbrrSTD,iISllflunl.:. (grounclfloor-)ofNirtr:,rl;r]'ir^Locl!l:. QPnusit.^{to-Raihval, SraLion,S<:i:rlnderabatl}	t
i I	(ss	Asian^{'lbursand'l'rarrellers,} (CroundFloor) Navodiryat^dgeBuiiding, Opposite to^{Railway Station,Secuntlerabad}	I
	Fo	$riKrrshnaSweets, (Ground Ftoor-)Navodaya^{Lodgelluitding,} OppositetoRailway^{Station,Sccunderabad.}
	(at-	HotelGem,. t.g"tu.irtiNon-Vegctartan^{andNorthIndian(Cellar Portion)} iltarodaya todgeBuilrling,^{OpPosrtetoRailway Station,} Secunderabad-
	62	AsianExpress^Tea, irlavodayatodgeBuitcling,^{oppositetoRailway Station,} Secunderabad.	I
	1		I
	63	AsianTeaStores, Navodayatodge Building,^{opposite toRailway Station,} Secunderabad.	,.
	64 (	Vaishnavi Bhavani Travcls, No.9-4-212lB/l,Behind^{Navodaya Lodge,} Opposite to RailwayStation,^Secunderabad
	65. 1	SnJalaramTravels, No.9-a-2L2/ts/l,Behind^{Navodaya l-odge,} Opposite to RailwayStation,^{Secunderabad-}
	/^66.	^{Supreme Travels,} No.^{g-4-2l2l.Bl3,}BehindNavodaya^l,odge, Opposite!oRailwayStation,Secunderabad
	( oz.	s;SAiBabaToi:rsandrravels, ; No.9-4-212l84;BehiDdNavodaya Lodg6, Oppo:sitetoRail*aySlation,Secunderatlad
	68	PreririsebNo.9-l-I38to142,sPGGirlslHighSchoolCompound, Opposite to RailwayStation,Secunderal)ad.
	1u"	BombayLaundry, . PremisesNo-9-1-138to9-L-142,SPGGirlsHigh SchooICompound, Opposite to Manohar Talkies, Secunderabad
	I 70.	PremisesNo. 9-1-138ard142,SPGGirlsHighSchool Compound, Opposite to Manohar Talkies,Secunderabad.
	/zt-	Vijay GcneralStores, PremisesNo9-1-138 and142
		., SPGGirlsHighSchoolCompound,
		Opposite to Manohar Talkies,Secunder4bad
		,
I	J	f?b

¶86

I
t
I
I
') \ Ll,r l; l i..
lrl'}() (irr |. Iil1ir S<:hr,ol Oornporrrrrl, I
I Irl(r n:r,: sIo 9I lilS ir:,d l4'2,
( )l)t) )1ir1( 1 I\larrolrrr'lllktcs, St'r'rtncleralrarl \ I
7:l T. / l)r ,Iiit {B( , L .l:ou 56 'cu Lrs, S,ro. Sunderam,
B{J:]INI.;SS I:/o. tl. No. t 1-571/ I,
sllLl;rl( i i C rlcondaL (lross Roa(ls, I{ydcrabacl
I a
71 Lesl r: (iol:2,
Agc, irl;ou 45 Jcars, S/o. V.L. (iornex, nI
I I3usrrrcss, i/c.tl.No.9 1 159 /3, I
Sr:lrz,si iirr load. Scr;underabacl fr
I Resporrdents/ Respond. Lrtr./i)'ii rr,lr ntr
 I
I
For the Appellant : SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR, Advocate I
For the Respolrder t No.1 : SRI D.V.SEETHARAMA MURTHY, SENIOR
COUNSEL FOR RE,RESNEING SRI M.AVINASH REDDY, AdI/OCAtI-i
Forthe Respondert Nos.2 to 74: NONE APPEARS
,9d
4
'1;ir,;',The Court delivered :ho following: cOMl,lolt.lUbCrrlEiit; ,'l' ' f:m

¶87

ili :)

¶88

t I

¶89

f t{u HONOt.tRAt}Lt.t t)lt..,tjs'ilClt c. ttADHA RANI

¶90

SECOND APPI.-At, NOS.I 2 & 6.1OF- 2019

¶91

COMMON JUDGMT'N'I'

¶92

Both these appeals are fllcd by rhe dclLndant against the common judgrnent in A.S.No...l9 of 20tt and A.S.No.4 ol-20 I I fiorn our olO.S.No. 145 ot'1997.

¶93

l-he parties ar!. lrerein alicr r-clcrrcd lrs arrar..cd beftrrc the trial coufl

¶94

I'he plaintilf filed O.S.No. 145 <rl' lggl seeking declararion that the delbndants I to 5 had no claim in respccr ol'thc suir schcdule properlies and lor mandatory injunction directing thc dc f'endarts B ro 7 4 t. dcal only rvith the plaintilf in respect ofany rents, deposits and othcr material in respect of the suit schedule property and flor grant ol pe.nranent injunction against the deleridans I to 5 tiom laying claim or rirlc in r.cspcct ol'thc suir scheclulc properties.

¶95

4.1. 1'he plaintiff was a coml)any incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its rcgistered office at No.5. Whites Road, Royapettah. Madras and it was represented by its Ceneral [,ower ol'Attorncys. The plaintiffcompany in terms of its-Memorandum of Articles ol Association was holding all properties both movables and imrnovable of a religious bocly known as the Church of South lndia. St.'l'hornas Clrurch was cstablishcd by thc Missionar.ics of the Society lbr propaga tion of' thc⁽ⁱ QSPSJ ln Foreign Parts (for short "SPC")

¶96

¶97

)

¶98

it a:tttt,; .1 )? l. nl )A19

¶99

()

¶100

l'.-st.tr.r(.(! n lnl l.l;td irr thl lcltr lijli, as \ias tlte c,rsc rrilt tjr- esl:ritji.;ir,rlr.rtr ol \ arious .l rrrcitt.r il .J1111!.11 I I-ycler;ri_.it1i :lt(i Sccun,lcr-ai)rl,-, lri i ir,;1;1;1.. 1 Sccrrrrrle 'ai.irri '. is r)iirt rrI r.r orrrrri ide kni-.u r: (,,h r!-clr ( ! L.riilr.ri r rri, saitl churclr rr rr" .or'r .ti rrctc(r rr ith corrtrirrution:s fiorri (i.a: .rr I irze i errri .rrrcr [:urrl1)can arrrl V ts.ironzir! Sc.cietics. J'he propeftres i,:ti. iic,. lrr SL.l itor11as (S['(j) ivlisr,iorr r,r.'c tcchnii;ally reqistcred in the nantc r,f Il..r, .A.Sebasrran durirg t^c uciir i i77' I.he management or the church was ailcrl, r,cst..cr * itrr thc 'lissror,irr_r r I ilrc ('hLir.ch u,lto aiso a(ltni]iirrtarc(l t,i(, t.rtL)trr,11ie\ i,,.1 institrrtio,rs .,i' thr ( lhurch rvith the assistance ol L:.rr [r: r5,rs u.; riti:: thr: cuslorrr r|iil; 1rr.: (]rrurch oI t:ngrand and the aifirir- .1' r.r)r ianci v;irrr trrc Vlissirrlllr'll: tl:c ..lrairrnan o{'all corrrrtrittees inclr_icir51: tl:,, i):,r.si, ( {)ti,ltitiec I (-'hLrrch wiis u.dcr the administ'ative jtirisciicr ion ol tire trr.,r .rariras 'e f)ioce:;lin ClounL:il ill the ycar 1947 1'he Bishr-rp of rhe N{ir,l riLs l)i<rccsan w:rs cxcrcisirrg Lpis cc ral jurisdiction over the Sr.'[ horrrl:: ( S rG) (.hr.rr.ch Secuncicrabad ln 1 re year 1947, a United Church called Ch rr:h ol.Sourh Inclia was firrrni:tl b,r th , [Jnion ol the South India tJnileci C.i rr .clr S<;irtlr Irrdia provrnccs oI i\4r:th, ri:,t Chu'ch and cerrain I)iocescs ot'the r,,.qiirarr Churcrr in South India.^{'[.^,:} ('hurch of South India was go'erned I.r1. , [1,1r ci:llcC tirc S1,nod which u,zLs Lhe Suprerne governing l,egislative Br rj,, rntj ilrc iirrrrl authority in all rlat ers penirinrng io tlre Church. A{ier inr:it,po.aLiorr ol- the plaintills z\ssrciari< n, a pro,erties includi^g the spG ( hurch

¶101

'uirciinr

¶102

¶103

Dr'ARR, ) to 12 & 64²⁰¹⁹

¶104

be longing ro rhe olti^{church o1'SouthIndie ri'asLlndcr the Managerrentol the} plaintilf association

¶105

4.2. The object ol the^{plaintill'associationwas [o act andallorvits nameto be} used as trustee or agent^{whether aloneor jointll' rvithany personor persons' [o} aid and lurther^{the work of the church ol South India in those parts of India} where the Church^{ol SouthIndia mightlunction,to aid and further the work to} acquire sites lor^{building and to build, alter or enlargcsuch buildingsand to} maintain and endow^{churches, chapels.church yards, burial grounds'schools'} colleges,ashrams,hotels,boardinghouses,hospitals,dispensaries'churchand mission hatts, ctc.^{to be used in conjunctionwiththe workof rthe Church.of} ' South tndia^{within the area of the Churchol South India'}

¶106

4.3.l.heownershipofatlthepropertiesinallthe2[Diocesesolthephurch vested onty with it^{and not with thc Dioceses concerncd.[-hc Dioceses at} Medakwasoneofthe2lDiocesesofthe.Churchofsouthtndiaandithad spread over the^{civit districts of Adilabad, Niizamabad, Medak'RangaReddy} and Hyderabad^{in Telangana.livery Diocesehad a Bishopas the Head-of the} South tndia iri respect^{of the Diocese.MedakDiocesewas dividedinto-tluee} District Church Councils^{viz, Godavari DCC'MedakDCCand Town DCC}

¶107

(I{yderabadandSecundcrabadl)C(-)'[:achDioccscwasdividedinto Pastorates, the^{primaryorganizedgroup of Christiansat the local level'} The

¶108

Dr.6 RR, J \a t),?,64 2019

¶109

afiair,, ot thc^{PaSi( laLervere qoi,erttedLrt'the PaStol-at:[,on Itti(tccrrhLcilwor-lli]} in con.junc,.ii,n^{ir.tt r ,hi: Pres'b',,,tcI h.ltil} .'scne^{ra! o\rer:lillhio1'Ii'-'Paslot-ltic atrrl oi} its religious actir^{llis.The St. lhomas(SPG)Chunrh hac t'nh oncl)asloratc} i.e.. S1.'I'horr,as^{(S'}(i)Church l)astoratc.3ut in the ycar() /2' two I)astoratcs} u,erc lbnrcti ie. St.'l'hor-nas^{(SPG) I'anrilPastoratcatril St'flrontirs(SP(l)} -l-elugu ['ast'lratc Sut both the congt-o-qatiolls 'ror'-ship in St' lhonlas (S' church, SecLrnriri^{rbad under the superintendanceaird co,itlol oi' c--SlMedak} lJioccslr.

¶110

4.4. l he pr.op:r1^er; ol St.I'homas^{(SPG)Church originally Stood reg!steredin} the narne of Rer,. l^{s.sebastianMissionaryand were rnar.alied b,u- thc socicty} {br rrlopogar iotr i,^{( iospel in l.rore ign Parts. 'l'hcproDer-ti0: ol' ttre Clhulcit wcrc} transli'rrcll il li.',,r^{ut oi the plaintif[by virtuc o['rctiromcnt and t'anslcr ol1'rust} Deeci datccl^{22.0: .196l under a registereddcoument. .1[s1g '"vouid be lour} pcrsolls in t:ach^{)i:ccse holding power of attirrneli to L:Lrl otr bchaif of the} plaintiff and tht:-v^{,llrne were competent to dealwith the prrperrymatters on its} behatf.^I he^{right with regard to the managementoftheprop( rlios of the church} was uphcld aur^{c ;nfirrncd by the Flcin'blc Iligh Coun o{ .ltr<{ici[rrrc c'f ,'tirdhra} pradesh hv ils_irrcgrrent dated 21.02.1990 in CCC;.)'Jo.i0l^{,rl- 198i. The SI)G} had becn urt:rgr:d^{withthe plaintil'fand had lostits idcrJity a' ar indir''idualand}

¶111

separ-ate churclr^{* itlL cfl-cct ftont 27.09'i947'}

¶112

Dr.GtR.l to t2 & 64 2019

¶113

4.).^-l'hc contention ol thc plaintiff \'as that thr l-' delrndant clainred to hc u Society regrstered undcr thc I)rovisions of AI) Societics Registratiorr^{Act and} det'endants 2 to 5 were claiming to be the olfice bearers ol thc lst^dcfendant society.^'[he plaintill had nothing to do with thc said socictl-.^'l'hc dct'cndants² to 5 were lalsely claiming that they were having title over the suit schedule properties on the ground that the said propemies bclonged to thc Socicty kno*'n as St.Thomas (SPG) Tamil Church Society, the l'' delendant. Delendants^{8 to} 75 had been threatened and coerced into believing that the delbndants I^{to 5} were the persons entitled to deal with the suit schedule propertics.^'l hey^were compelled to believe the t'alse claims ol delendants I to 5 inspite ol^the knowledge of the proceedings in CCCA.No. 108 ol 198L The defendants^had no right to question the rights of the plaintill to .deal^with the suit^schedule properties. They were not entitled to deal with defendants I to 5 in any^rianner whatsoever concerning with the suit schedule properties, as the legal title^and possession continued to vest with the plaintiff. Some of the delendants had entered into lease deeds with thc I "' delendant in respect of some^of the^{items of} suit schedule properties and^prior suits^were filed^{as'O.S.No.326ol199t,} O.S.No. I8l of 1986 and O.S.No.^l2 of^1994by St.'['homas^{(SPG) l'amil Church} and Pastorate Committee against Church^{of SouthIndia, MedakDioceseand} others on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad Apart from that O.S.No.84 of 1991, R!.No.247 ol 1994, LS.No.t43^{of 1979,}

¶114

¶115

t), GR Ii J tc 12 & 64 )019

¶116

C).S.No.l^{()i i()(). (r.S N() lrllo1'l!)91. O.S.\o.91 ol ltr] {. ! \ "l[)t) 1 ol'} 1994. O-S.N.,. I l(l^{,) oi- I9!)4arrd RCl,Nol08 of l9()6 rre-e lll:cl} 't-sainst the plainti f f ilnd {)tl cr.^{r'laimingriqhtover the suit scheduleprc perLics-Sot.ne ol-} the suits \,cr,r disr.rissed^{and sor1-Ieof the suitswere pendinglor disposal.-l'hc} delendants i to^{5 r,,r lllseptomises col[ected sums liotn t1(] ot 1er def-endants} and thcy^{u,cr.e lial lc to accountlor ihc said arnount.I-hc dele rciants 8 to 74} were in occultatior rof^{i,arious portions ol thc Suit schedulc propertics,as such} the ptaintilf'^{rvoui,lrcserveiLs light to seekeviction ol' tl c deltndants.{ hc} plaintilf^r,r'ou lci cc tsid..:r^{accepting the rents ttr;tn tlremarrd treat ihem as ils} tenanls in cascs^{[o br consideredindividuallyon merits. sorl,ro]'thc occupants} were originally inr u,:red^{b1, the plainLilf efld theywefefcc()gniz,:dtenants, but} cluc to passaile ot inrc^{and long pending legal battlebclore clourt oi [,aw.they} took ad.rantiLgc^c l' situation^{and circumstallces to gain tllentselvesat'the} instigation oi'de'l-c^{rdants I to 5 and thcy} "vere^{coercednorLo pa/ theirrents to} the plaintiff^{rrnd rl e,r startedpaying rnonthlvsumsincludirghezrvydcposits to} defendants I to :!.^{D:fendants6 and 7 who wercin occupation of somepoftions} in the plaint^{r;checlrlt: propertieswere payingrents to the pkLirLtifl'butthey were} shown as prolorm.^{r parties to the suit. 1'he plarntillsoughtf()r ceclarationthat} the defendants tr^{j had no claitnwhatsoevet'in respcci rl th('sult schedulc} properties I^{to ,1 ]nd to grant pcnnanentinjunctionagairrstth:m restraining} them nol,^{ttt cli irr iLnv til-le in respcc,. ol thc Suit schc<lLlc propertics.l he}

¶117

Dr.GRR. I so 12 & 64 2079

¶118

plrir)til'l'also sought tbl grant ot'rnandator), injuncLion dir-ccting thc dofi:n<llnis 8 t() 7.+ to deal onll rvith the plaintitT in rcspect of rcnts, deposits and othcr rnatte rs pel.1aining to suit schcdulc item No.4 arrd to direct tl]em llot to havc^arl5' transactions with the delendants I to 5. l'he plaintiff also sought lbr^permancnt iniunction to order er-rquiry lor ascertaining full detailed accounts of rents, funds, deposits and securities by appointing advocate commissiotter itt rcspect of itern No.4 of the plaint schedule properties

¶119

!. De lcnda nts 7 , 22, 23, 41 , 68, 73 and 74 remained cx-parte. Orr 01.01.200 l, the plaintill t'iled a rrcmo rcporting that the 2nd delendanr^{died and} no steps were necessary.

¶120

l'he defendants I and 3 filed common written statement and similarly defendants 4 and 5 filed a common written statement. Defendants 6,^{8 to} 21,^3] to 46. 48, 50 to 67, 69 to 72 filed separate written statements. Defendants^{24 to} 12 tlled common written statemcnt

¶121

The del'endants I and 3 disputed the execution of, the allegcd CPA authorizing the GPA holders to institute^the suit and contended^{that the said} CPA was not valid and enforceable.^{The defendants had also disputedthe} existence of body in the name of Church of South India and vesting^of the^suit prope(ies in the said body. The defendant disputed the power of Synod^to interfere in the property rights and administration of suit^{propertiesand}

¶122

¶123

D..GRR, I \o 12 & 64 2ct9

¶124

cont.r){-ie(i i til ti, ' l1)l)cil_\ l.titt-s il lcsllcct ol an\ ilnnl( r, ltlr 1tr.rt1rg16r,. 61y11lil be actluircri ., ' .rs rrcr rll. Pror isions ()l rrrc [.r, r, t ,rr ;r\ I]er trrc Constittrtiorl of Ir tiia ,ttld trol l.rr atr,r rrllrcr prrrccclule . Iir,' deretrilrrrrts derricci the right oi tlrc plainril-i to rp26i1-,,g Ilte suit sclrecjulc lrol)et1ic.; and rhc execution ol' retir.'lr enl an(i transfcr .i' trust in IaVour ol'th: plaintil.l- under a trust decd dated r. .( -r. r96 L^'r her c.rrtendcci that the said <rri.u,renl rva:; ror-eccr a*d lab.icati:d. crr arcd to 1tr.h the p'.1.rerlies o| thc Crrur r. antl irrrrt lhe samc was r'rot hinrliirl; i . them. I lrc I'' ci,:fcndant \vas in exclt si zc rosscssion an<l was managi.c rhc ;rit pr.pc.lrcs r.r,irhi, thc lincrvlcclgc <ii'tlr,: plaintir{.s.- I.he I., defendarrr wrrs rol .r part)' to rhc procccrlings in cCC..N.. I0g of r9g r arrd the findings iu rhe r;ai l ju<rgment \ ere 11o[ binding on tilerx. I re praintiff ne'cr exerciscd riglrt or'< r,r'nersrrip .vcr the suit properties arrd as:;u<.h, the dr:rendants I an<i J rvcre.ot iirb c to rc.<rcr anv accounts in respect or'rr,c in,:ome from thc suit propci-ttcs. I tc delendanrs 2, 4 and 5 had nothing t<: do witlt the I .r defendant and thc suil pr.pc'rics. r-hc-v ct,nt.ln.re,i thirr { re suit schedure properties cxcrlusir' lr beron6l,,'d to thc ('hurch and dicl irot rrtrronll to any other person- The I" ri. errdant socrct) at no point .r'time clairn:ci its titre .ver tlre suit ploperlies. It rvrrs mana.r_ling the suit schedulc properr i:r; a:; a rcgisteretl society lormeti b'', c rngrcgati<-r, ol-tht' church. Iherc *as ,o (::.uso of aclion fbr. the suit and the cou 1 lcc pai<] tr_v rhe plaintiff ryas also not ((,r rcct and that the suit was not ,,ai.t,r n:rbre 'with.rrt seer,.irg trre rerief ot'decr l, tion or'titrc and

¶125

-_!-

¶126

¶127

Dr.GRR. J 50 12 & 64 2019

¶128

$'itlloul secking dcclaration regarding the leasc agreclnents bet,,r,cen ihc plaintif fs and delendants and that the suit w'as barrcd by limitation.

¶129

The det'cndants 4 and 5 denied with regard to the establishment ol rhc Church as well as the devolution of the church under several managements and vesting of the Church in Church of South [ndia and management of the Church by the plaintifF association as avered in the plaint.^'fhey contended that St.-l-homas Church was established by St.Thomas Mission inspired by the visit of St.Thornas to Madras especial ly o I St.Thomas Mount and other persons wci-c spreading the Gods Cospel.^'fhe Church was established by Indian Tamil Christians around the year 1847. The defendants denied the contention of the plaintitf that they instigated the tenants to stop payment of rents to the plainrilis and to pay rents to them. fhe suit suffered from multifariousness and misjoinder of cause of action. The Gencral Power of Attorneys of the plaintiil were sowing seeds of d iscard and were spreading dissatisfaction amongst two congregations of Tamil and 1'elugu and even disrespecting departed souls who had already slept in the Lord and awaiting the day of judgment. There was no cause oF action lor the suit and the suit was also not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction.-

¶130

-fhe 6'h de{'endant filed written starement coptending that the suit as framed arraying M/s. Acrne Buiiders as 6'h defbndant^'without seeking any relicf -> -'

¶131

¶132

Dr.GRR,t to 1) & 64 2019

¶133

was nol ntainiair] Lh I in llrr . I he tit:lcncliltt \a:, r [ar)i i] irr or:cunaLion oi' vaflous porlt .)us ort rcni. I hc sLrir \,as llol ntaintainlbrc aga n.I tl crtr

¶134

i0.^-l-he []'h d< lendant c..t.:.dccl that it .as a Ccr:tr.a Gor,,ernrneni undertaking and ir caurc into existerrcc alicr thc (iovcrnment ,l- lndia had takcn overM/s. caltcr lr,d a I-irnrrcd under rhe I-sSo AcLot'19,/,. N4rs. caltex India I-imited took the s te on leasc under a lease deed dated 30.ci. I9(ig lor a period of l0 years \vitl' e lftrct lrorn 15.05. l96i renc,ablc tor a f rrr-hc.- periocl of l0 years lor the rlhurch oi Sruth India Trust Associati,n re,presented by Gordanshah. subs:quentlv. on the exiriry of the contractu,rl per.iod, the Iease was continued lion 1985 rili L4.0-i.1995 ur''der a lerrer drleri 2i.03.19g5. Subsequently, in t[ e rnonth ol' .luly, 199], ihe defendarl .r'i s inlorrned vide letr,er dated 03.07. l9!'3 that rhe properlies of st.'fhonras (S?{.i) 'l-amil church had been transfcrrc I to St.'l'hornas (girG)^'i'amil cliu.ch S.ciety and that ihe renewa[ of the lease would be h:ansacted by the l '' defendanl. I 1 r()sponse to the said notice, the c{ef:ndant issucd a larvver notice dated l3.r)7.1993 to the, lst defendant as r.r'ellas the plaintif'f, tbr which the lst delendanr issued repl1, fl61.6 12.10.1994 threalering ro evicr the de{-endant with clfccL liom 2-5.05.1995 Thereafter, the delbr rd,tnr cntered into a I casc deed with the Isr def'endant tbr a period of I5 ycars si arting lrom 25.05.l9 95 on varying ratcs,r1 rer.l.s. It was in lawful possessron oi the suit schedule prol)crt) ils a Icllant u t( er I valid lcasc

¶135

{

¶136

¶137

Dr.GRR,^j 5a 12 & 64 2019

¶138

dced and it u'oulcl abiclc [t,r' the linditrgs ol rhe court^{andpa1'' rellts to the persorl} rvho rras entitlcd to the rcr.tts as per thc orders olthc Cor:rt.

¶139

ll. '['he delendants 9 to 21, 3i to 46, 48, 50 to 6],69 to 12 filcd separate written statements, but their contention was similar contending^{thatthe plaintiil'} was a fictitious pcrson created l'or the^purposc ol^{grabbingthe property ol} olhers.^-['he alleged nrernorandut.n ol'articles ol^{association was not validand} binding on the defendants. The General^{Powerof Attorneyprojectedby the} plaintill was also not r alid and cnforceable. Therc^{was no body like Church of} South India to thc knowledge^ol- the delendants^{andthere wereno movable or} immovable properties in the namc of Church^{of South tndia. The suit property} did not belong to thc Church olsouth^{India. The contentionof the plaintiffthat} it was managing the^{propcllies ol'thcChurch of SouthIndia (SPG)Churchwas} false.^-fhey were tcnants under the^{l"defendantunderseparatelease} agreements and they were in^{possessionand enioyment of their respectiveshops} / premises and they were regularly^{paling rents to the lst defendant.The} plaintifI never approached them^{with regard} to^{the shops and premises and} sought for dismissal of the suit^{with costs.}

¶140

12.^'lhe contention of'det-endants^{24 to 32 was that none of them werein} occupation of any portion^{of St.l'homas(SPG) ChufchCemetery nor any ol} them were tenants of the^{plaintilTor that of St.Thomas SPG Church. Theywere}

¶141

-A

¶142

l)r GllR l sa 1)&64 2A19

¶143

in occultati()rr^,tf cl^{crcnl sltrips :ltrtl sotrle ttl tll, :ltol:Il'lrltlc'.tl ttlthe} Vfunicipat^(,rlto:', tirn^{antl tltcr trcrt not} Irarl^{ol ilrc} 1-rt-lrp|ti^{'b-'lonrlirte. to St.} Thontas SP(i^(lhr rttr^{cernclcrl.Iher \i:ercpa,\irtq rcrt., to tllc 'lLrrliciPal} Corporaiion. Sccurccrabad^{[)iVrsion arrci thc} lrlairrtill'^{had IIr gh( to sucthe} delendants lrlr rra^{rclatorl, irriLrtlctiorl directirlg thcrll tr'} l)rl.e:)tS -o thc lllaintiti' fhe delendartts alro^{submitted thatneithcr the plilirrtill'rttrt'1i,, <lclendarrts I to 5} ha<l inductcd th,:tr^{intothc strit} i'toncrtics^{ancl thztttll.'w \clJ n() in ('ccupation} of anv ol tht. suil ic,ledulc^{pnrpcrtics.['he1' dcrricdlltc otlLL:r plirintallcgations} and sought^{[i.lr cisr rrissal of thc suit witlt costs-}

¶144

1'he plaintif - filed a rne r1ro not pressing thc suit agair st tl-rc dct-cndants 25 to 32 and thal^{,lue to settlcmcnt betrvcen tltctn not tr:sst:d against the} del-endants^(.. 7, :2^to 55.^{As such. the suit was disrrliss:cl hy the trial court} against thc clcfcrd^{rnts 6,7.25 to ilarrd} -il^to-55

¶145

The trial^{,:o rrl framedthc {blloivingissues Ior tlial:}

¶146

i) Whether th<' pltt'nl,tf^{,s havinganr rryht trt lhe .tuit sclt<ltlt' ,trttJxr t:'?}

¶147

ii) wlrcther tht, ploin if/^{is cntitledto tht,declttruti<tntlt,t thr u,-'letula1t! I l)5 huwno claim} over the suit^{pt oP( rti..t .'}

¶148

iii) whether^{t!rc platiff is entilled to mundatory iniuru:lt,tu ttgttitts' t,e/btdants8 to 7J a:} prayed lbr?

¶149

it') l{hethcr^{th" pl,tinit'i i.t antilltdtrt !hL'pct ntrrttanl initttt ttrttt r11 171.7'11 1711} )

¶150

v) l,{/htther th^{p!c,irtt is vu!idlv \iNnL'a'ottLl} /'rc\ctl!(d'

¶151

vt) IownLlt^{rc,tL t'}

¶152

¶153

¶154

Dt.GRR, J 50 12 & 64 2019

¶155

t 5.^'I'he Plaintifl got examined PWs_ I to 3 and got marked tsxs.Al to A77 On behalf of the defendants, DWs I ro 5 rvere exarnined and Exs.BI to Bl4j werc marked. The counse I for dcf'crrdanrs 9 to I l. i-l to 46, 48, 56, 57. 69 to72 filed a memo stating that they would adopr the evidence led by the lst defendant as they were tenants under the Ist dcfendant

¶156

The trial court on considering thc evidence of all the parties and the documents exhibited by them, answered issue No.l holding that the suit schedule propefties belonged to the Church and basing on Ex.A66 coupled with the other material on record placed by the plainLifl, it would show that the plaintiff had been exercising right of management over the piogierties of the Church and the.right olthe plainrifl to manage the properties olthe Church was recognized by the High Court in Ex.A3 proceedings, as such the plaintiff had right of management over the suit schedule prope(ies. However, observed that since the suit was not one for dbclaration ol tkle, no fi.nding with regard to the validity of Ex.A66 could be given especially, when the Church which was the owner, was not made a party to the suit. As the suit was nol filed for declaration of-title, but for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction, directing the defendants to pay rcnts to the plaintiff could not be given. The trial court further observed that when no counter, claim was filed by the defendant No.l to declare him as the owner of suit schedule property, there was

¶157

¶158

Dr.GRtl, J st: 12 & 611 2019

¶159

no nce(1 to :rlba li rrpon thc :llPCCt ()l rlrc raiiditr of c.cr ti )n ,rl [.r .\6(r. I'r Lrsr l)ecd

¶160

17 . With rega d to issuc No.2, the Lr-ial coult obscrvcd i-lrat lhc plaintif'l had got right TO mirr rg,r the suit schcdulc irroperties in^,.,icr,r, of the t'lnal resolution passed b) he O rnrpctent Authorit,v and in vier.r,of lhe iirrclitgs of the tligh Court in Lr.A-i, l,ut the plaintillwas unable to exercrsc the right of r-nanagement ln rcspecl ol pla nt scheciulc ite ms i. J anil^.i. I'he pos-.r'ssion in respcct ol plaint schedulc p oPerties br def'end:,int No. I rvas nol hv v rl uc ol an_v title decd or by u,ay cl1-⁽ ntrusting the properties by the concerni:d ruthorities. A congregation cor ld not hold any p|operties, therelore tlre 1;ossession oi the properties br, clef rnCant No. I coulC be treated as unauLhori,ied and illcgal and that the deft:ndan l'io,1 w.as a trespasser and that ther remedl, ol the owner. was to seek fbr- t:jec:tu errt of the Lrcspasser fiorr the propcfly arrcl to sock ibr mesne profits for use an( occupation of the property

¶161

The trial co rr- observcd that it was necessary on thc part o 'the plaintill to seek lbr reoover, ol possession oi the suit schedule pr()perties. Even if a declaration as sor ght for by the plaintiff w,as granted, it ruas oi no use as the plaintilf could nor erercise any right over the suit scl'redule properlies as it was not ir-r possessi,rn ol itern Nos.l, 3 and 4 and held that trr: pl.rintil'f was nof entitled for declarr .ti,tn as prayed fbr

¶162

¶163

Dr.cRR, ) so 12&64 2019

¶164

I9. with regard to issucs I ard .r. the rrial courr. .bse.vcd that there was no jural relationship ol landlord and rcrant bcrirecn the plairrtilland the contesting tenants and when tlrerc was no attonlr.}lcnr ot' tenancy, the plaintiff could not seek lor mandatory injunction to dilect the renants to deal with it and reiterated that as delendant No. I had been excrcising management over the suit schedule properties, the plaintiff had to seek fbr possession ol the properties and lor mesne profits but not mandatory injunction or could not seek the relief of permanent injunction. As there was no any principlc and agent relationship or other fiduciary relationship berwccn the plaintifl'and defendant No. l, lurther held that there was no obligation on rhe part of the delendant No. I to account lor and to depo_sit the renrs collectcd by it, as such answcred both the said issues against the plaintiff.

¶165

With regard to issue No.5, the rrial court observed that the plaintiff filed two GPAs marked as Exs.A54 and ,465. Ex.A54 was dated I6.12.2005 but the suit was ol the year 1997, as such hcld thar t:x.A54 was nor executed fbr the purpose of institution of the suit. With regard to Ex.A65, the trial court observed that the same was dated 09.01.1996, but PW.2 was not one of the GpA holders under^-Ex.A65. None ol the 4 GPA holders whose namcs were mentioned under Ex.A65 were examined in the sUit. PW.I was only an employee in the plaintiff association who deposed that he was authorized by Dr. Mrs.Pouline Satyamurthy to Eiivc cvidcnc!-jn. the suir. The said Authorization

:-/t

li,

I l i"

Dt.Gllll, I ,o 1) & 6,1 )019

¶170

leii.r \il ii.ia,cd as I:r..\15 1.r..\l-i r^,9rri.l ,lrsL:1,r,,: ti',r l)l \lrs.l).trlrrre Salr:trrLtlt lrr ri rs ilonoul.:rr--i Sccrclitr_r ol tll. lll:ri,l .) (re ,rtr,tr htrt ljt() aullrot'irat^ion !t, '(rr b), the (ipA hol<lcrs u,zrs itor lll(tc - (' Ii) l',' t[(' (')11-t_ l1c piirintitl cliri nol placc ar]), rnatcr.ral sltou,rrrg tirr rllltoi.ili. rr1 Mrs'l)oLrlrrrc liat rrarnurlh), to execu{.c trro authorization re rt:r ir tir.rrr .r- I)\,r. Sincc thc irlxint il had n.t examincd any of the tr.st rr€lnberi oi-rhc l)lainriflAss.ciari.rr rr. t P.l lrorders. had drnu,n ixivcrs.: inf.:rcrrr;e irncir r Sctti.rr r r.1 ,r' tltc Irtili:rrr I--r;de rcc Act that ilthc Ilaintill'hl,d crantint rl (jl r\ Itr,ldcrs. titi:ir. cviticnce rr rgl-t l,e adversc to its casc and he ltl tlra the I) uini \1,.r. n,.rl vaiidl.,, sigrlc<l arto ir-cs J- tcd and answcr.cci rssuc \o.-5 at.air :t !i:.- |lllr;r;1.1. :trul d isrr r isscd tlie suir.

¶171

2l Argrr*'r:d rv lhe said.judgrnent and crecree, both th: ,laintil't' ,rd t[.rc 1., dctbndant f,rcflt-l l{ appeals. A.S.No.4 ol. ll0l I was pr.,.l._rr.ed ll, the I,r dcl'cndant clrrestio rirrg the findings of-thc trial court on issur No i in lavour ol. thc plaintifl. .A.S Nc.39 of l0l I rvas prefcrrecr b1, thc plairt ll.rluesrioning rhc Iirrdirgs giv.. .n is:;ues 2 to 5. Ihe learrred )i, .\dJirronrr ( h er'.rLrdgc. (.i1i, Civil C-ourt vi(l(i ( Drnmon .ludgnrent <iatcd il.l0.20lti i. torh rre a,,cals, on consirlcring the ore I and docurnentary cvidence on record anl rrrr re,apy.rreciating thc sarnr:, corr{lutre d thc findings oJ.the trial court on issul, ,,. I hul,l ,n lirvour .{ t^e ,laintill trut rr:versed the findi,gs on issucs 2 to 51a-irr.rting i.andatorr in-junction dircct.n6 tre conteslinq dcf'cndants to dcal oniy rri:tr tre plrinti[I.in

I t

Dr.GRR, I so 12&64 2019

¶176

respcct o['any reuts, deposits and otlrc'r nratcrial in rcspcct of the suil schedule propefty and granted penrlancnl injunctiou against thc delcndants I to 5 ltonr laying any claim or title in respect ol'the suit schedulc propenies and also held that the plaintill was at liberty lor rcndition ol accounts on^proper application subject to payment of required court f'ce as per law

¶177

Thus, the lower appellate court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendants

¶178

Aggrieved by the said^judgment and decree passed by the learned XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, the defendants preferred these appeals challenging the concurrent tindings ol the courts below on issue No. I (S.A.No.64 of 2019) and challenging the reversal findings^on issues 2 to 5 (s.A.No.l2 of 2019).

¶179

Heard Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, leamed counsel for the appellant^{on record} and Sri D.V.Seetha Ram Murthy, *leamdd Senior CounseI representing Sri Mamidi Avinash Reddy, learned^counsel on record for^{respondent in} S.A.No. l2 of 2019 and Sri J.Prabhakar,^learned Senior^{Counsel representingSri} A. Srinivas, lgarned counsel on^{t'ecordlor respondentsin S.A.No.64} of^2019.

¶180

The learned counsel for the appellant^contended that both the trial court and the first appeltate court under conlused^{judicialmind decided} issue^{No.l on} mere presumptions and assumplions and Qfled^{to appreciate} that the^respondent

¶181

< ,Z\

¶182

r!l

¶183

l)t.6R Il. l 12 & 64 2019 'a

¶184

No-l l\lirnt ll 'lll,.i^{th-':ilitorr Lhc gtoLrrldthltt it Irac titlc ti l|):sc'"r"tr orct} thc suit gtrrrll..'rtl("'^{ttlI tlol on tllc grourlclthat it ltad olrlr' a Ii] ll I ) lllllllilgclllclll} and ouglrt rlct^{t() h tr c rltadc out{r case lor the respoldcllt '( 'irronlrlll\ to tllc} law and c'id.nco^{t tr record.'[ hc first appellate coun'rnd tlr" i|r:rl cotll.tlailed t'} appr-cciat.' tl]ilt^{ll( r]Sl)oltdentNo' lirl its plailrt ciailtlr.dr1,,. trctslrill rll. alI tlrc} propertics irr its,:ll;lttd^{rrot witlrits diocese and i)Ws l t() 3'( lc rlot tllc o{'ficcrs} of plaintill'^{conrp:r)v ot1 its boarrl and thcir evidcnccirt [lte rl.';crtt':col'plaintil-{'s} cvidencc^{.vt,ulci' l\e n() 'alire- 'fhe first appelIatc cour ' rld the :r'ial coLrrt} ought tt;^{111' g rliz \'n adverse ilrleience againstthe respoildlllINc libi rrorl} gracillgthcr",,itltc:sloxalldoughttohaverejectedlhcC'yi1{c.ttccofI,Ws'it<iJ u5 1[1g.,,^{Itaci nol.} Pl^{ry,:datly roleitt the managetnento1 suit 1rl1 llcr ties \/hen thc} plaint rvas rrot^-,: li,lly^{signed and presentedand the GE'\ holderswere llot} exarnille(l. thc^{,:r'i:ience ol PW.l could not have been l-rrke n into contideration'} l-he trial coLrrt^{c( rnmittcd gravc crror in decidingissueNir>'Sat thc crxl oI its} judgurent atrd wk er.^{the said issuewas decidecl agairlsttf'c pla intifl'observing} that the^{plaint!a. rot signedproperlyand the same was n()l valid in accordance} with lau,. orrghr^{rr )t to havedeciderlissue No.l in [erourol'tire plaintif'l-}

¶185

Hc hrrthcr^{c,tntended that the documentmarke<lar I:x '\66 was perse} illegal and it^{t:ou d not trc relied uponto giveany findirrgra ith regartl to rights} ol any partv^{rror I :;pecificalty with regardtc,, titleor matri'gonlcnt' 'l lrc allegcd} rrust decd^{,"r as r,< id atr initio andhit by RepealAct oI I96() t'r thc Indian Church}

¶186

&4,-^

¶187

¶188

D..GRR, I so 12&64 2019

¶189

.\ct- 1917. I'he frust Dccd datcd ll.0l l9(, I '.r^as .'t.'ctttctl^Lrndcr Section^6(-5) ol lndian Clrurch Act, I927. []uL thc^Irrdiarr Churclr^{Act. I927 had becrr} |epealed by Act No.57 ol 1960, accented by the Presidcrrt on^{27.09.1960, with} rcgard to repeal made to the act ol the tsritish Statutcs^{(Application ol [ndian)} Repcaled Act, 1960. The Trust Dced^was brought^{into cxistenceon 22.03.196I} as per Section 6(5) of the lndian Church Act, l92l^{and by that time,the} execution of the document became^{void ab initio in view of the Repealed Act of} 1960.^'lheretbrc, thc l'r'ust existing in the^name ol^{S['Ctbreignparts had no} right to transfer a propeny in tavour ol "CISTA".^{Thcy rvere stoppcdfiom} transferring, dealing or claiming any rights after^{the Reireal} of^{the Indian} Church Act, 1927 by the Act ol 1960^{and the said documentwas a void} document hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contracts^{Act.As per the} Memorandum ol Association of CIS tA, they were^{only the bearer trustees and} not the owner of any of the^prope(iesin thc^cntire South^{India. Withrcgard to} thc present property under acquisition, the^{Church was the owner and} St.'l'homas (SPG) Tamil Church^{which was part of church congregation} managed the Church Properties. [t^{was neither pleaded nor proved by the} respondent No.l that the suit properties^{were trust properties and in the absence} ol any material treating the same as^{public trust properties,deciding the case} rcsulted in going on {'ronq track. Ihc disputc^{rclatirigto public trust could only} be fited belore the Chief Judge Cour, -d^{not beforeany other Court. 'fhe tirst}

-.---\

'. /

)l)

Dr.GRR, t so 12&64 2019

¶194

apl)ollarc c()rrl lr,l rhc t'iur court thirc(r to apr)r(.ciatc rr.r rhe suir r)cllr.i.c O.S \o iJr ,rl^{() 7()} tiroLrslt tllctl undcr Scctiorr l2 of ( I,( but rhc rclicl.s clairncd thercrrr r .,rlcl n.t aLt.act Scction 92 arrd hercc Ex.l.i could ..1 be saiil to havc bee, ,.r';c:l rndcr Scction 92 of'crr(- and the pri.cil.rc rc_qarcri.q irs binding natlrrc \,( LrltJ pot apply.

¶195

27 ' [{e ftrrthcr c.nrended that the ro[owing surrstzmt ar qrestions of rarr

¶196

would arise:

¶197

(i) k'lrcthcr /rr '" 1 I '' ul .'1 r i e. ( ('( 'r lutrgment antr rlecrea t\ v. ia ,, utt orda.c.e ,.itrt rrtt, Iaw:tnd hintlir! t, t , ,' ,tpl)cllunt o' tlta ttppellant is not a part.., t<t tht s.id l.r.s il3 unrl A-1. rr.t such thr .suid ludgni, lt (\ decr(,e i.; in personum und not in r1,m at ltt,i ,\tclions / I lo -1./ ol Ihe lndian LvidantL,, t.l

¶198

(ii) whtrher l r"lhr| t, . ri'ust l)acd rutctr 22 01.t96t is wtiri c'r,tut (nt in trhit.h tht appellutlr i.\ nt)r '. l),rrr there-firc, thc suul dttumt,nt is hi; urtde,.,,a,:ttcn 2l ol tnclian Contrt*t '1ct attd 'tr^L it'.g r,id doL tunent tha appelant need n.r be r(quiraa ro chafi:ettgc trtc said drruntent wt,lt S,tction 3l .[ thc Spectfic Retief Acl .br tlrc r ,ast.n lhat, tlr, ,r,i) documtnl i.r also lttt tndtr the provi.siotls ofTrust Act, u,hich is as.folknt,.;. :

¶199

u) 7 hc olla,'L',t li usr Deed is not in uccordance wirh lhe lau, rrnLr trrt,re is. no t.ri.stin! tt.1 \t ot. tru-.te!.\ on thc dale of execuliotl docuur tt! tlaled 22.A3 t96t

¶200

lt) The suid utt'g3d trust dcr:d, doted 22.03.t96t was ulleged, exetuled under Prot,itirt t undcr Section 6(5) of tnclian Church Act,'-l.l).7 But the lndian(.|rur:h 1cr, I927 has becn repcaled by tlct No.5).o.f tgf:0 rccenled hy the P,c.ri lt,r t t'n 27 09. 1960 *,ith regard to rcporrl ,nirle t(, ttrc a:t ol tl.tc Briti.;h.\litt ttc.\ (cpplicdtrrtr.t ol lndtan) ,cpc,tlid uct. 1960. lt lit.u.tl thc repaulel Lr the statuktr.y /ct.t in lnclia ura applicable utittt r :gurd tO the,trust optru rnli hy CtSl'A. t,hich i.\ regi.\let"rl'undr,.Cornp,t,,u,s Act, 19l3 in thc va, I ?47

¶201

t) Thc trrrt dtc lwas brougllt into existence on 22.03.t96t as I't^{r Siection} 6(5) o/'thc ind Ltr. ('hurch .4ct, 1927 and by the time, execuiott of thc tiocunen; hLt t i't'ctnnt void ah tnttio In viev,ofthe rape aled a, t t,/ lt)60 'I harc.fort . rl 1!^t, u.\t e\istitlg i)l tlk ndme q/ SpG forei.gn ,drts l,Ltin tL\ a (.\ociety). ".1 h(.1.1 incorponrted b1 body creqteLl by his Iat,e m0iL\t) L'ing l'llilliarns - Ili t\ ]'.,tgland, hos no right to transJbr this propertl /ar^our ol C lS7',1 'I l,r) a,e sbppxtd fron tranglerri ng. dealing or cla,u n.q any righr-s aJitt tl.t t 'p:al o.[ tha lrulian C'hurch I ct. 1927 by ihe a(t (.,1 l9()0 it I

¶202

¶203

Dr.GRR, t so 12 & 54 2019

¶204

/in.lt^pltca Tlttr/ore. tht -saul tL,tumcnt i: vtitl &tcttttt:nr ttnd htt trtttlr:t Secrion )l ol the lndian Contract: Act

¶205

d1 As per tir lv{er*trandum of ,4ssocialion o/ C157..1. thev art onlv tht bcurer lrustees and not the owner of any o[ the properties in crtire South Irultu. With regard lo present proper0) under acqui.\ilion, the church is tlte owner utd present sociely Lt!.. ,9t l'homus (SPG) Tamil^(-hurch i.r part o/ thurth LonKrcgalion mt,mhar und /urthcr^('hurth is buill h} cont!'(:gul iotl to pcrform pral'tr.: und scryicas. Thcr/brc. Church Propertl' r: nunagccl hy St Thomas (S['O) Tumil L'hurth Societl,

¶206

() The Trust Deed. datetl 22.113 196l i.t an act of creation of a documenl v'hich hds ru.t valua under luu and thus void document which is hit uncler provision oJ^(:ontract ,4c1. Trusl Act, Transfer Acl ancl Repeat Act { 1960. 'lherelbra basedon rhe Alleged T'rusr Dacd. dated 22.03.1961. CIS'|A has no ownershry righl ond litle over the suhject mutler o/ L'hurch Propertl.

¶207

1t Whether lhe plaint signed by the plainlif is in accordance u)ith law as contemplated under ()rder 1 of CPC and the evidence leal by the p1aintif...............f is not in accordance u'ith Indian l:vidence ,:lc'l and lhe L'PC as the original plaintiff was not examined and in viev, of the ( ompuny Act. 1956 no authorizalion u'as placed lo prove that, the evidence oJ rhe Plt I is vulid and that PIL.I i.s competent to give evidence under Sectiort l8 of lndiun Eyidence Act to provc tlrc utntents of lhe plainl

¶208

28.^'l-he leamed counsel for the respondents - plaintifls on the other hand

¶209

contended that Ex.A3 iudgment given by this Court was binding on the deflendants. No pleading was taken by the defendants in their written statement that Ex.A66 was a void document nor there was any collateral challenge by tiling any counter claim. The defendants' congregation could conciuct only prayers but could not hold property. The trial court focused too much on the issue of technicality with regal d to observation that the plaint was not signed properly. Substantive rights could not be taken away by procedural lapses. One of the trustees entered into the witness box and examined as PW?. As the lrust deed was not in challenge and there were no^pleadings with regard to the same, its validity could not be examined in this case. The defendant was a party to

¶210

Dr.GRR,l so 12&64 2019

¶211

I;x.Al. lt was^{sl, rr' t1 as e} llast()raic^{strllsequcntly it Ltlctanl'-r'ph lsedItlo a taust} and r-eliecl uPorr^r,,r-ious Judgutents^{oithe Ilon'bleA1-c'x CcurLar d High (iourts}

¶212

It was r,"el s,ettled^{that Sccond Appeal under Scction 100 ot' the Civil} Procedure^{(lode. 90ll (CP(l can onl-r bc enterlained on a suhstantial question ol} lar,r,). Tlrc^gLri<lel ncs^{to dcterrnine u'hat wor-rldbe a substiurtial questionof larv} within the nreanit^g oI scction^{100 ol'CI)C werc laiddownb I the Hon'ble Apex} Court ir-r Sir Ch rnilal^{/. Lal Mehta and Sons} Centrrry Spinning and Manufactu ring^{( 'omPanYLimitedl}

¶213

The Fion'bl^,: ,\pex^{Oourl in Chandrabhan (dt:ceased)through LRsand}

¶214

Others v. Sarasv athi^{and Others2. held that:}

¶215

"31 t he propcr lesL lbr de^{termining\ hethet c} c,'uestion of ktv, rai,ed in lhc^{casei.\ suhslanlul} tvould be, v'hethtr it i.s of generul^puhtic iryf)orlon((, or vLltelhar it direttly^and substantially affects the rights oi^{the purliesand} if so, whethetr it i.r either an open^{queslionin the} sen.te that it is not finall)' settled.^{hy this} Courl^Il the question i.t tcttled by the^{highesl courtor lhe} generul pri.nciples to be applied in dererminilg the qucslion are v'cll sellled and there^is a^mtre q,uettion o/ appLying those principle\ or the (l,uestion raised is pctlpably absurd, the questitn vvould nol he a subskmtial que.stion of law.

¶216

:'2. I'o bc .\ubslontiul' a queslion of lau,^mttst be deharabla not pret,ittu.sll,.seltk:d hy^taw ofthe lenl or o bintling precedent. and mu:t have a rqaterial beLtring on the deci:ion of the cuse, iJ trttsu,erad either t'af insolnr us the righls ol'the t,arties^{bc/oreil ore concerned.7 o be a questi'tti} t'fltu' "involvtng in the cose" lhere ntu:l be.firsl,

¶217

'AIt{^{1963sc l3l1} '^{AIR2022 sc 460t}

¶218

¶219

Ot GRR, ) so 12 &64 20L9

¶220

e fotukletn lrtr it lutd in the plcadings and tht: qte.\lt()t1 sh<tttld cnrcrge l) om the .\ustainable lindings^ol lutt^{arrivcdat hy court oflocts anel it} Dnt.\l h(' na((.'urt' to deciLlc lhat que.tlion of lav l()r u l \t utul ltrr4ter dctisi0n 0f lh( &tsc. ,1t? L ntir(,ly nct poinr retiscl lbr tfu /irst timc he/ore thc I lith⁽ out t i\ not I qua!;lion inwtlvcd in thc tusa unlc.s.s it goe.s to lhe root of lhe maller. lt u,ill. therefttrc. depend on the /hcts and ctrcuot.\tan(:e ofeach case u,helhar a^questhn o/ luv is a -\ubstonlial one and involved in the case or not. the paramount overall consideration heing tha naed.for slriking a.judicious balance bctu,een the tndispcnsable obligation to do justice ut uLl .stages and impelling necessity o.f avoiding prolongotion in the life of any lis.

¶221

J.).^'l-he principles relating lo Section 100 of the ('l'C rclevant for thi.r case may be -summarised

¶222

(it .4n inltrenta ol /ttt lrom thc rccilul.\ or contenls oJ u Llocu,nunl is u^queslion ollad.^Bul thc legal e.[[ecl o.f the terms of a documenl is a queslion of law. Construclion of a document involving the applicalion oIony principle of lctw, is also a queslktn of lau'. Therefore, when there is misconstruclion ol a document or^wrong applicalion o/ u principlo of luw in^{construing a} document, it gives rise b a queslion of fuw-

¶223

ii) The High Courr should be satis/ied that^the cuse involves a subslantial^question of law, and not a mere quaslion o.[ ]aw; A^question of law having u material hearins on lhe decision of the cusa (lhat i.. Lt quc\tion. unsv'er lo^u'hich affbc'ts thc riNhts of puttivs lo the .\uil) u'ill ha u substantial^qucstion ol la$'. if il^{i-s not} atvered by any specy'ic^{provisions of law or settled legal} princtple emerging.from biruling^precedents and involves a debatable legal^issue. A.rubstantial questbn of ktt u'ill also urise in u contrary situalion. u,hcre the^{legul po.tilion} is^cleur, eilher on accounl^{of exPress provisiorus} of^lou' ttr binding^{precedenls.but lhe court helowhas} decided the^{matter, either ignoring or} acling controry^{to suchlegalprinciple.In lhesecond} rype^{of cases.lhe sub.stantial quest'ionof law} arises nol^{because the} luv'is^{still debatable.} but /.2.--.

Dr-GRR, l \o ),2 .9 6.1 2019

¶228

r',i/l .{' /,/{' ,i.,,',,,,_ ,, )t1tt'!!,1 t'll .t t'..ilt ) l(t tlt^,\l,t)ti \lt)'tt/t\ lir,^r,'ll,tt ii lt,t.,,it,)tt rti i,^tr

¶229

,rt l'itc ltntt tt rtil, t' llt,rt tltt i/t.ql't ( t; ttt \1 ilt I '1f i1t11'rlt'tr'^tt tlit^{itttLi:rtt',' t)i ltr /\ (tli)tt,1 ,tl} ht: (.t)|tl: lt. lttI lltrt tt t\ tt()l lil ubtrtlt tt ttt,L' ,itzrt' ol tlt(' r\ t'il t(t t)!tIt\Ltl t'a(L(l)ltt itt ttt t' l,art ltt thr .otrt'tr^{lteiot ltatt} t:ttt)t-':(l rtr.'let iol t:r,itlL'ntt' rr Lttl,:'rl ort tn et:tltt'tc liit ht Lotrrl.s luttt' tlrrrrrt^r,rott{ ittftertnt,^s I'ttnt 'rrtvt^{tl lttcltItt' ttlt,rlt trigLll ' kt<'rrrttwtttsl.\ . ,),-} ii,) thc t'r;urts^{1111t1'rrort,qlr} cu\l lllt^ht.\fun ol rrt)o-/ ll/fun 'A,e r('ft'1 lo^"(ltci\tot1 bu.se,l rttr n,t t,,rlc,tr" uol o)tlt rL'f(r.\ lo Ld\t.t vhc-t: tircr,' \ ;t to/ul tlatrllt 4l tt'rl,'tt;L^httt ul:o,'fo.s^ltt !t1) Lu\t. i)l!(re thL, ct irlt'tt'a iuk<'n us t^,1'1,rr,r, s nol rc,L.soncrhl\ LLlpul)l( of \upp(,rt [:^th,] 'inding

¶230

t6 Right ttl upprtl i' ttttt uurrt,notit t;ight tti qoetll i.\ t(,nl(rr,'rl^hr :talrl( Illrcn .stt,lt,l': oLfers a lLuittd ttXitt t)/ Ltlpt:oi restrit,cd^ttrl. ,o cOsc.r v,hit h intttltt .rubslurtttt qucstnn.s ol 'at+', it i.s rTot opctl to tlti.( ourt to sit iL ttltptal tv:r thc fnciual finltttg.s urrivr:l uI by t^)re liirst .ll pe llate ( ourt.

¶231

ll. Admittcdly ).S.No.145 of 1997 lrlctl by the rospondcnt^{plainti{f was} not a suit 1br ciec a|ation of title to thc propcrties of thc -lhrLrch but lor a declaration that :hr aopellants - delcrlclhuts I^to 5 had^{no claior ur respectof} suit schedule proper-ioi .^-fhe clairr o1- the rcspondcnt^{- piaintil-Lo11 auagc the} suit schedulc properli( s^{was traceablc} to^{I'lx.A66,rcPistcre{l tru:;t dced dated} 22.03.196lt Luld(rr wllich the proocrties ol thc St.Thornas^{r S PG' Church were} translcrred in Iavo^rr ol^the respondcnt^- plaintiif.^{This(lot tr in ,lCCA.No.108} ol 198 I vide^{judg n(rn1} dated 21.01.1990^(Ex.A3) hcld^{thrrt. thc owner} ol the propeflies wils the^(lhurch and ho\'thc^{properlics wcre Lo be a<lrninislered} was

¶232

¶233

Dr.GRR.l sd 12&54 2019

¶234

to bc donc bv the .l r-ust [Joeld and upheld thc right of the plaintill to r.nanage Lhe suit schcdulc prollcrlies. Thc conLcrrtion ol the appellant - lst delcndani^wtrs that they wcrc nol parties lo the said^judgment and the sarne did not bind^rhern, but the said argument was untenable

¶235

On a perusal olthe^judgment in CCCA.No.l08^{of 198} I^{dated2l.02.1990,} St.Thomas (SPC)^-lamil Pastorate was thc 4th defendant. The^{cross-objcctions} filed by the St,Thornas (SPG) Tamit Pastorate were dismissed by the High Court. As pcr the learned counsel for the appellant, the^{lst defendantwas} registered only in thc year 199 l. ilut as per the evidence ol DWl.^{prior tcr} 199 t, thc appellant - lst delendant was represented by St.Thomas^{(SPG) Tamil} Pastorate Committce

¶236

The leamed counsel for the respondent -^{plaintiff reliedupon the} judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shiromani Curudwara Parbandhak

¶237

Commitlee v. Mahant Harnam Singh C.^(Dead), M.N.Singh^{and Othersr,} wherein it was held that:

¶238

",1s obscrvc<l hy this^{('ourt in} R.^Venuqiopal<t Nuidu urul Others. V.^{Venkaturayulu} Naidu Churirrcs arul Ors.^(liR l99t):;C 141) a suit under Sct'tutn^{lt2 (} P(^{is tt,suit ol specialnalure} lor^{the ptotect;on of public rightsin the public} Iru.tt and charities. The suit^i.r .fund.amentally on behalJ oi the cntire body oJ^persons ,who are iruer,,srel in lh! lru.\t. lt is for thc^vin<lication olr public right.s. Thc benefiaaries of lhe trust, which mu\ consist of public at larga,^.may

¶239

.^{'(2003)I I scc 177}

¶240

=--,-

¶241

)^l:t

¶242

Dt.GRR, t so 12&64 2019

¶243

cho().( 111() ()r ntot.r, l)t,t ();t,i4t()it )tt tltL,t)l!i):t \ /br^t/ru, put po;t: ol iiltnt tr \t!/ utlt:l(,t. \r,, ,r,,, ,.,..., Cl'C urul l/rc \uit t;llL, t lltu1i t,.t,nl r t) i i \nt)\1 only tlt(lr nAtnc\ e\ l)luintLlt, ( tut tt,, :,1 ,1,, I lln 1,ct:,',', r'h.,,. t-,1n, s .,,t ,,1 ,,1, .,, , , ., ur( lhc otil), put.t"\ to tltt, :ttttl lt)t) tu.i.tt,. ,.vould h i't th,. 'tt:,trrr', ll, ,,ctrtt,,. ,,,,,,,,,,:,, 5e.ing. the repre.te ntirtrle.\ o/ thc pubtt. ut lu:11,, chich is intere.tt(,1 in tll ti.utt ull ;t,,--,t, .ntcrested trtersons vould he tonsidttt,d in it,: tyes of lau' to be parties to th(.\L!tt tl ;uit u,nli:, liection 92 CPC is thus a rept.((ntatit.,,s.ttit dn(t o.t r^uch hind.t not o l. thc purti<,.s nantctl in tht: :uit-title but all thos<: y,ho rhure coinmln i'lteresl and ara inter(.\led n th(: tru.\r ll i.\ ,ot. tlot-reoson thal Explanatton U ro ,\cctrttrt II oi ('PL. co nslrut:t it,e ly hur\ b1, rc.s .irul.tutit tttt. enlire body of intare.\r(d pcr\on\ .tt.o t tc aqilating th{ mdtters directlt, trttl .\ h,tunti,ltlt Ut tssue tn an c0rltct .\uit un(ler Sc..tion t)) LP(-."

¶244

l'he ftrcts o f' the above judgmcnt werc ilirplicnble tJ the case on halld

¶245

Hence, the app,:ll rnr s - defendants \vere boulld by the said -ju,igment ol this

¶246

Court in CC(lA.Nr . t08 of I98 I dared 21 .02 1990.

¶247

The trial oor r{ as well as the lower appellatc court ca.crjorically held that the evidence of D W I would show that thc prdperties slo()(l ir the name of church and the ap )erlant - l'r deibndant was ,ot the owner c'rhe properties. There was no rec( ra to show that the propefties he rld by .,. Sr:bastain were transferred to st. rh rnras Mission as contendd by the appera^t - r,r defendant. As such, it coulc n rt be inrerred that rr-re appe,ant - r'r delbrrdarrt was vested with the rights of tr re management or rhe. properties o[-,(]hurch. o, the other hand, the contentri cl'l:x.A66, coupl_cd wi1[ the othcr nratcrial r)u rccor.d placec{

¶248

¶249

Dt GRR, .l 50 t2 &54 2019

¶250

by the respondent - PlainLil'l r,.oultl slros rhut thc plainti l)- rvas exercisirrg right ot-managemcnt over thc plopcrtics ol thc Churclt.

¶251

Oncc rvhen thc trial court hcld that the appellants - delendants I-5 had no claim in respect of the suit propcrties, it ought to have granted permanent injunction restraining the appcllants - defendants I to 5 in laying any claim over the suit schedule propcrlics and a nrandatory injunction to t.he tenants to deal onl-v with the plaintiff in respect of rents, deposits, etc. relating to the suit schedule property. Thercfbre, the appellate court was right in reversing the findings of the trial court in respect of issues 2 to 5 by giving cogent reasons on the basis of material on record

¶252

It was neither thc case of the plaintilf nor the defendanrs 1 to 5 that the I st def,endant was a trcspasser'.^-[-hc case ol- the plainti ff was that the I st defendant was un-authorizedly dealing with the properties without any manner or right. Hence, the plaintilf was entitled to seek relief of mandatory injunction against the defendants I to 5 who had no claim over the suit schedule propefty.

¶253

The alleged substantial question of law raised by the appellans defendants I to 5 with regard to the Ex.A66, trust deed that the same was not in accordance with law and it was enacted under a repealed Act, would not constitute a substantial question of law for thc reason that the suit filed by the respondent - plaintitT was not or-^{r^ar} declaration of title and the legality and

¶254

-t1

¶255

¶256

DI,(;RR, J 5a 12 & 64 2019

¶257

validitv oi'I:r...'t(r ) \iis rlot tltrccllr :tn issuc irr tlrt, .rtrr; .,1 rl llt.' a1tIcilants dclL'ntlants I to I Jitl noI filisc iln\ countcr cliirrr clrrcsiior ,r ! lr. lc.gelrt_\ iln(l validitl, of t'te trL rit deed. Ilerrcc. thc legalit', arrd r a irliri .l' tlie tl-usr dccd would nol cc'rlslrtr rc a substantial qucstion ol llr.'' in llrtrc r..r. orr,l appcals l'he allegcd substarrtirr rluestion rclatinc. to thc trrrst d('e(i c(,n:,tirrtcd rrrrdcr thc Repeal Act r^,as irr lerrable and withouL any lncnt. [.]n,lcr Sc-'1r., I o1'tlrc Indian Church Act, lt)27 the Church alonp u,ith its properlics \r 2r\ \ esred rvith the Cro"vn.^-[he Britis r litatutes (Application to [n<lia) ltepeal 1.,.:r. I()60 carnc ro be passed by the: Parl arlent on ?6.12.196a, so as to repi'al ct'rt.r n Ilrilish Stalutcs in thcir Applrcario r to lndia. while repealing ihc BriLish Sr:rr uic.r presoibed irr the said Act, it ,va i l,lovided that rcpcal of an1 t3ritish Stat rr,,s, :lrall nor allcct operation of rrnl s rclr statutes in rclation to Indra an(r to [x rson: and things. in any way belonginl tc or connccted with India in anr eorrr:trv tr u,hich lndia (consequential pr<t .'is;ion) Act, 1949 extends. I-he Indran ( hurch Act. 1927 finds place at Sl.] Jo.l97 ol the saiti British Sratute's (,{p plir:a.ion to lndia) Repeal Act, )960 l he Govemment ol India. Minisrr.y of [):lcrrce in a letter dated 03.0g.l9g^ji p rinted out rhat the legal effecr of rernoval i,,as rhar Churches vested in the Indii n church^-l-rustecs shall constitulc to Ira,,r: ihe beneficial rights of possessiot, control and usc of'prop,:rtics a,rd the rcpral in no u,av curtails rights of ror;session, control and usc vested in lrr: lrrdian churc[r 'frustecs l'he said :><:sition had bcen confinnerl hy thc tligh ( ouli olC)disha at

¶258

¶259

' Dt.cRR. J 50_12 & 64 2019

¶260

cunack in Church ot'"st..rohn in thc !/irtrerncss" r,. S,u1h Eastern *airway and others in R.S.A.No.477 ot'20r2 crareci 29. Ir.20ri, wherein it was herd

¶261

that:

¶262

"20. For the uiore.saitl. it i., clearly seen thot the prtsent. ('hun it dlu,ry rith it\ prq,?rty vt,\t..tl with the^(_'rov,n in r,iet, of Section-i of the lndian ('hurch Act. t927 and thc Cihurch was remrtved /inuil;, /iom l,urt-l r.tI the SeconcJ .\thedulc of thr ,4tr urul than in viey, rt Rule- l 2 rcul tith Rrrl, l: ,,t rlr lnJitrtt t hut.t.h tln,ltul Statulory Rule:. 19.f0 thc vesling of the sume look place u,irh the lnclian Llhurch T.rustee.r u,hich in vitu o/ tht. rs.,.t.ution ,,[ thc ,lrtr,unent (Ext.6) came tt' the hLlnJs ol ( ulrula Diocesain I rust Ass0aatit)n

¶263

Finally. the Britt.\h Statules (Altplicatktn tO India.) Repe u! Act. 1960 (Acr No'57 oJ. t960.t cume Io be possed on 26 t 2. 1960 so as to rcpeal certain British Stattttes in their applicatio,n to lndia. The said Repeal Act of 1960 while repeuling the Britis.h Sturutes as speciJted in the Schedule o/ Act has ./urthcr provitlecl rhut thc suid rcpeul of un.r Britis.h \l(.ttutes .\hall not u/lact th opt't.uti,n ol. un), .tut.h .stutute in rctation t.u .lndiu and to fr,r:on..and thing.s in any u'ay behnging to or connected with India in ory, counlr), to yvhich lndiu ((.'ons.equential Provision) Act, l9l9 .exlends.^,the' trulian (lhurch Act, t927 veD, much /inds plo"" ot ,i. no. 197 of the .\aid British Statutes iApplic(ttion to lndi4 Repeal Act, 196A lt is furiher seen that the Gover4ment ol lndtu in thi Minktry of De.fence in this connection had issued a litti dated 3rd lugust, lg6t. ll was a cluri.ficalion in fhe backdrop of removal rtf Anglican Churches in the Se<.onl Schtdub rt, thr lnrlian Church Act. 1927 conyquent upon the (k)pernment o.f lndi.tt ; ganerui 1t<tlic_r r.cgurtling thc u,ind up it,1 acclesiasticol u/lrair: u, e./. 0l 0f t9lg.^-thLe letter points out tha lagal affect o/ said removal; lhut thc^(.lhurcher- ve.\tcd in th,: lndian Church l'ru,'lees undet Rule-t5 of the lndian Church (lndia) Slaturory Rulcs. /910 shall Lrtntinue to

¶264

I i.)

¶265

Dr GR R, l 50 12 & 64 2019

¶266

hLtt,c the hcne/iciul rLghts of posression cr,ntr,ti utti use itt rcspact of the sit(( \vo,l di tl i huilling.s oi thc^('htrthes fu ha:. bean t lu,.tlitt' thtrl lhe elkcl oI lht: rapeal does in rut i',r.t curluil lhe r ighls of yrsse.s.sion. L:onlrol nLl ,t! i- v,hich vc.steti in lhe Indiun^('hurclt frtstt :: tti rtspcct of thL:^()hurchc.r in lhe Sacond lithLtl,ut o,1 the lndion Church Ac't. 1927 und su<h righ,s luue in no \1)u) been intcrlcretl u,ith or alfcc,t,,.l^"

¶267

['he cc,ntcnt orr of the leanred counsel [br the appellanl ha thc plairrt r.r,as not signcd by th: plaintill in accordance with [iLw is a lso un[enablc. as admittedl),, the pla nriff is a company. The learned c()unsol l'<,r tlre rcsponcle nt - plaintilf'rciicd upor lhe^judgment of the F{on'ble Ape> Cour. ir [.nited tsank of

¶268

India v. Naresh K umar and f)thersa, whereirr it was hcld trat:

¶269

"plaint can be signed and verificd b),a^per:o,t rluly authorized. Company moy erprt s:;1.: mtlhorize one of its officers lo stqn the t,l(linl o' it ntay rati/1' c4trc.s.rlv or implicdlt th: ut t ol si11ning. The court ca render it-\ /inding dhL'ul ratiJication on lhe basis of evidance on recortl tnd circumstances especially conducl ol lh,. Ltorties during lhe trial. Even iJ the lrit ccturl finds that the plaint was not duly signed aru{ verified by a competent person, the appellatt: '.:ourl can in cxercisc of llou'ers under Orde^{, .l} , Rt le 27(l)(b) of the code of civil procedure antl ch,tuld have direcled a pov'er of atlorn(y lo.bt' ':roduced or can order compelent^person of^lht ::ovnpany Io be exanined as. wilru:ss to prove th( "aiificalion".

¶270

Thc leam,:d counsel for the respondent - plairltill a so ri,lied upon the

¶271

judgment ol the Hi th Couft of Andhra Pradesh in M.Iqbal a n,l Co. a nd olhcrs

¶272

'^{( r996)} 6 sCC^6(;0

¶273

¶274

Or.GRR, l so 12 &64 2019

¶275

'. Somcs\r'ara Ccments C'henricals [,inrited, [[.r'deratrrtls.^rr lr.'t'citt^{it was} h.'ld

¶276

that

¶277

"8 7ha pluinti/l i.s Lr (onqturtt ttlc()t lxtt.Ltt((l under lha^('on4tunie.s ,lct. Undcr Order )9 Rule I LPC pleudings cun bc .signed and verifiad on hahall ol the^(-orporation hy- thc Sccretar-r'ttr h.y' uny I)irector or even hS, other principul Oi/iccr of the Corporation.^'lhereforc. it is clcur that lhe Secrelary o/ the⁽ ompary i\ compctent lo sign and verifu the pleudinqs. lhut apart, PlVl who is the Se cretary o/ the Plairuiff - Cttmpany al the lime of his deposition stated^thet Sri. B. Madhusuclhan Rao was the Secretary o/ lhe Company ut the time of ./ilng of thtt^srtit Therefore. the ohjection Ihat the suit is no! muinluinahla on thi: grouncl c'annot^he .s'ustaincd."

¶278

4l . The contention of the learned counsel lor^the appcllant^{was that PWI was}

¶279

not an authorized GPA holder but only an cmployee.^{But the I{on'bleApex}

¶280

Court in the above case held that:

¶281

"A person may be expressly aulhorised^{to siSn} the pleadings on beha{ of the^company, Jbr example hy the Board of Dirt<tors^passing u resolution to thal effect or.by a power of atlorne! bein[! execLiled in luvour of^uny individual. In uh-scncr lheraol and in^cu.\a.

¶282

u,here pleudings havc bcen^{signcd by} one of il's oflicers a Corporalion cun ratify^lhe said^actktn of its oflicer in signing the^{plcudings.Such} ralifcati()n can be express or^implied. Thc^Court can, on lhc busis of^{the evidence on record. und} alier taking ul! lhc^c irt^{umstttntt t ol thccasa.} specially u,ilh rcgurd^{t<t the concluct} o/^lhetrial. come to lhe conclusion lhal lhe^{corporation had} ratified the oct of signing t\f the^pleading by^its o//icer. "

¶283

and lurther held that

¶284

'^{tege (r) n} t-t)^r64

¶285

¶286

l)t 6llR,'t to 1) & 6,t 2019

¶287

''l/i ('i/.( r itkc t,t, 1tr-t,tL 1t -h(t | ,,tit\ L,tt in.\titut,',i t)t d(,ltrlthl ()n llt ltdli Il ,, 1r,',,, t.)t-Polutit)n- luhttt inlcrLtl tl'ttulrl tnt t,t l)ft^{tntlIt:tll(] hL' iiL''t'tltti()Dd Dt(r( t,'i'iiDtL-,t it} I'ntctJut,tl dtfaLt\ 'l1ich drt ncti gt.t lo !l1c tt^()l o/ the m tlt r shoul(l not be pct nittect to d(l,t11^(t ju.\t ceu\e l'hcrr, rs tLt//it:i(nl po.t,cr in t'tt' ( out't.. uru.li'f lht I txla ol ( rril Pr 'ttr:,lur trt (.1.\ut't ltt,tl ittiu.tt,,,- t.t tu)i tlrtt lt tttl\ l,,t ttlho itos u iltst {-asc. As lar as ptt;s'btt tr sdhstantttL t Bht \hould rut he all, tv,t d I t^'tt dc/batcd ot acco nl ofa proctdural irrtgultr,t.l' u hich is curable."

¶288

"!t tunnot hc di.sltuttd that u L(,ttpun.l likt /.1( u.TtllaDt ,,,tt rut, .tttJ fia' 1114,1 11t tl\ t^t 4^tl t4 , l 'nlcr Onle r 6 Rult l1 ol tfu CoLc ol i^,r! I'r;tcelurL, rt pleadinu is raquirtd io l'L' .\1gnL(l ty th( porlt ttrul itt plaritlcr, il.m!. ,l.s u t:onry1(t 1t t.\ a juristi( (ntity il is obt'iou.s ihat !\tm( ler;t)rl h,ts to .\i{n the plcadints on beinlf oJ i u i'n?p(lny Order )9 llule I o/ tht^(itdt: o,t^i'i"1l Proccrlun'. llu:refitrc, providt'.r thol t1 o \u t tl uquintt " itrpttJlittl lht .\etrcl, rr (,',r.?l Dir(ctor^(,r ollrcr Principul of/irer t:f t iu ct,rltu'alitDt who i: uhla to dtprise to lhc lit(1.,)i lhe ca\e tnighl siqtt and verify cn bhalf o.' t,tt' ct)mpo^.. llead-ing Order 6 Rule I 4 rogt th :r t4ith Ordpr ]9 R ,: I ol tha Co'le ol t'^jt'1; l'rurceclurc tt ttould o?.paar lha! evcn tn ltk absance tl eny lornul leltct ttf' aulhlrit.. , )t' pou'cr ol u(lorn() 1ru'",ing hc.:n ,'xct ute,i L, p,:rs.ott rcfarred to in Rule I ol^()rder )9 ratr. ,tt wrtua of the oLli(:t vhich ht holds, .sign atcl vertfv thc pleaLling-' on hehail ol t,t( ct)rytorulion. ln udLlition lfurclt uul .:1c ho".s Orclar 29 Rule I ol rh,: Lbdt ol Civil Prt,tet'ut c u.\ G compuny is u juri,^lit enttty. I .ct .lttl) rn horise any persotl to sign the pluitll ot ttte $ rillen sluteruent on ils behul[ und lhis^y ould trL rtgarcled us sufJicicnt complianct u ith t,n provisktrts oy' Order 6 Rule 11 of the Co<,a tf ( ivil l>rocedure. "

¶289

ln r ier.u < t ht above^judgmcnts. this^(lourt doc's rot l-irrd ant, subsratltial

¶290

qucstion ol'lir'.v ar isine on this aspect As thc plainti{llrr:rt o:^{(-'onrpan,r'.} il can

¶291

¶292

Dt GRR, J so 12 &64 2019

¶293

bc signed bv cven the Secrctary ol- thc (ionlltan_r. I Icrtec. tltis⁽ (rllrl eot]:idc.rs that no substantial qucstion ol' la'ui, rr oulcl ar-isc in arirnittinE. thcsc sccond appcals.

¶294

4l In the result, both these second appeals are disnrissed at the stage of admission. However, the parties are direoted to bear their own costs

¶295

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal, if any, shall

¶296

stand closed

¶297

Sd/-K.SRINIVASA",RAO JOINT REGT9TRAR

¶298

¶299

//TRUE,COPY// ,t/Y/ r ': SECTION OFFICER 1.TheXllAdditionalChiefJudge,CityCiviloor]ri,Secunderabad.,:'^'.. ,.^i4, ".'i,r.;"1o., ,

¶300