IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 AS.No. 31 of 2000(B) ----------------------------- OS.205/1977 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): ----------------------- SURESH JAMES VANCHIPALAM, S/O. LATE P.K.JAMES, AGED 33 YEARS, VANCHIPALAM HOUSE, PODIYADI P.O., THIRUVALLA. 2. P.M.VARGHESE, S/O. LATE GEEVARGHESE, AGED 68 YEARS, THYPARAMPIL THETTAYIL, KIZHAKKUM MURI, KAVUMBHAGOM P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY SRI.R.D.SHENOY, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFFS 1 TO 3 AND DEFENDANTS 1 TO 6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. POTHA JOSEPH, INCHAKKATTILAYA MALIPARMBIL, MATHIL BHAGOM, THIRUVALLA (DIED) 2. V.A.CHACKO, VANCHIPLATHIMKAL HOUSE, MANIPUZHA, KAVUMBHAGOM, THIRUVALLA. 3. T.CHACKO, KAROOR HOUSE, PERINGOL, KAVUMBHAGOM, THIRUVALLA. 4. BASALIOS MARTHOMA MATHEWS, CLAIMING HIMSELF AS CATHOLICOSE OF THE EAST AND MALANKARA METROPOLITAN DEVALOKAM MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM. A.S. NO.31/2000 5. FR. M.V.GEORGE CALLING HIMSELF AS GHEEVARGHESE, OSTHATHIOSE CLAIMING TO BE THE METROPOLITAN OF NIRNAM DIOCESE, BETHANY, ARAMANA, PALIAKARA, THIRUVALLA. 6. FR.K.V.JOHN, VICAR, KATTAPURATHU CHURCH, THIRUVALLA. 7. FR.M.A.THOMAS, VICAR, PALIAKARA CHURCH, THIRUVALLA. *8. K.T.THOMAS, KODIATTU CHATHAMALA HOUSE, PALIAKKARA, THIRUVALLA. (REMOVED) 9. T.M.CHERIYAN, THEKKEMATHILAMKAL HOUSE, KAVUMBHAGOM, THIRUVALLA. 10. VICAR OF PALIANKARA CHURCH, FR.K.G.MATHAI (ALLEGED) PALIAKKARA, ST. GEROGE SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH PALIAKKARA THIRUVALLA. 11. TRUSTEE OF PALIAKARA CHURCH MR. K.K.VARKEY, (ALLEGED) ST. GEORGE SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH PALIAKKARA, THIRUVALLA. 12. VICAR KATTAPURAM CHURCH, FR. GEORGE PARACKAMATTOM (ALLAGED) ST. GEORGE SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH KATTAPPURAM, THIRUVALLA. 13. TRUSTEE KATTAPURATH CHURCH, MR. JUBOI VARGHESE, (ALLEGED) ST.GEORGE SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH KATTAPPURAM, THIRUVALLA. *ADDL. R14 & R15 IMPLEADED. 14. FR. MATHAI OOMMEN , S/O. P.O. MATHAI, VICAR, ST.GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH KATTAPURATH , TIRUVALLA. AS. NO.31/2000 15. JUBY PEEDIAKKAL S/O.P.E.THOMASKUTTY, KAVUMBHAGOM P.O., TIRUVALLA. *ADDL.R14 & R15 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.15.11.2010 IN IA.1849/2005 *THE NAME OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT IS REMOVED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DTD. 01/02/2000 ON CMP. 430/2000. R1 BY SRI.K.C.JOHN, SENIOR ADVOCATE R1 BY ADVS.SRI.P.G.JACOB, SRI.BROSE JOSEPH NEELIYARA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU R3 BY ADV. SRI. P.J.PHILIP R5,7,10 & 11 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM R6 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS KOSHY R9 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KOSHY R13 BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) R14 & R15 BY SRI. GEORGE VARGHESE, SRI.T.S.NARAYANAN. THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2010, ALONG WITH AS NO. 51 OF 2000 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A.S. Nos. 31 & 51 of 2000 & I.A. 3063 of 2010 in I.A. 262 of 2000 in A.S. 31 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J, These appeals arise from O.S. 205 of 1977 of the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Ernakulam, which, by a Notification, was designated to deal with matters relating to administration of Churches. The suit, from which these appeals arise, was initially filed in Sub Court, Alappuzha as O.S. 78 of 1977. The suit was being prosecuted after issuance of notice under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Yet, when the matter came up for trial, after P.W.1 was examined and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the plaintiffs' side, it was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that the suit is not pressed and that the suit may be dismissed. The controversy boiled down to a request by the plaintiffs that status quo as ordered by that court earlier be permitted to continue for a period of one year till the A.S.31 & 51/00 & I.A.3063/10. 2 Association takes a decision. That was not fully acceptable to the defendants. Ultimately, the court below dismissed the suit taking into consideration the submission of the plaintiffs that it should be dismissed as not pressed. However, it was ordered that the plaintiffs are allowed to make use of the burial ground for burying the dead for a period of six months or till the Association takes a decision, whichever is earlier. 2. These two appeals are filed challenging the aforesaid decision on different grounds. We also found that different interim orders were issued by this court. But at the end of the day, what needs to be noticed is that a suit in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 could not have been either withdrawn or dismissed as not pressed without further notice under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. On this short ground, the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.7.1999 is only to be set aside and the suit remitted. 3. Having regard to the various issues raised regarding the administration of certain religious ceremonies and matters A.S.31 & 51/00 & I.A.3063/10. 3 affecting faith, we notice that there are two factions, the Patriarch faction and the Catholicos faction. The Patriarch faction, to which the appellants belong, recognised spiritual supremacy of the Malankara Metropolitan, while it does not recognize his supremacy in temporal matters. 4. As matters stand, while the suit relates to Kattapurathu Jacobite Syrian Church, also known as Kattupurathu Church and Paliakara Jacobite Syrian Church, also known as Paliakara Church, which have independent cemeteries (burial grounds), both factions are permitted to have the dead buried in both the cemeteries. The Vicar of each Church is to do the prayers and perform the religious functions attendant to the burials. It appears that the controversy arose as to administering prayers as regards the dead, belonging to Patriarch faction, since the Vicars are said to belong to Catholicos faction. The complaint of the members of the Patriarch faction is that on completion of prayers, a white piece of cloth (Shoshapa) is used to cover the face and then, A.S.31 & 51/00 & I.A.3063/10. 4 the same ought not to be removed and the human remains with the face covered with the cloth will have to buried. The complaint is that the Vicar belonging to the Catholicos faction often indulge in removing this piece of cloth when the dead body is brought to the cemetery after prayers in the residence of the dead person. We therefore issued an order on 27.9.2010 calling for a counter affidavit on this issue specifically stating whether the Vicars of the Church are willing to carry out any particular pattern identifiable with the Patriarch faction or whether they would permit a priest from the Patriarch faction to do the services in connection with the burial. Following that, the Vicars, through their learned counsel, say that there is not much distinction between the ritualistic pattern of the Patriarch faction and the Catholicos faction in relation to the burial ceremonies. This means that the only issue that surfaces is the question of keeping the face of the corpse covered after prayers. The Vicars say that when the dead bodies are brought to the burial ground, they need to know the identity of the dead and A.S.31 & 51/00 & I.A.3063/10. 5 therefore it becomes inexcusable for them to remove the cloth and to see the face. We put it to the learned counsel appearing for the Patriarch faction as to whether they would receive the priest from the Catholicos faction to participate in the prayers in the residence of the person, who dies. This not being acceptable, learned counsel also said that the Patriarch faction accede to the position that after the prayers in the residence, the dead body should be taken to the burial ground without covering the face and the face would be covered only after the Vicar identifies the dead body. This means that once the face of the dead body is covered with 'Shoshapa' after it being brought to the burial ground, it can be taken for burial and there will be no further complications in the matter. With the aforesaid, we are told that different interim orders governs different matters. In so far as the management of the dead bodies are concerned, we direct as aforesaid. Following this, we set aside the impugned judgment and remand O.S. 205 of A.S.31 & 51/00 & I.A.3063/10. 6 1977 to the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam for consideration de novo in accordance with law. The court below will fix a reasonable period of time for disposal and if the parties are not prosecuting the matter, the court will be at liberty to close this matter in accordance with law. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.