IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RFA.No. 812 of 2008() --------------------- OS.197/1977 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANTS/ NON-PARTIES ------------------------------------------- 1. CHEV.P.T.GEORGE, S/O.P.V.THOMAS, PONNATTU HOUSE, MAMALASSERY POST, RAMAMANGALAM, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. BABY MATHEW, S/O.LATE K.V.MATHEW, MANGALATH HOUSE, MAMALASSERY POST, RAMAMANGALAM, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. ROY THOMAS, S/O.V.THOMAS, THALIYAPARAMBEL HOUSE, PAMPAKUDA.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. SHABU K.JOHN, S/O.LATE JOHN, KANJIRAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KIZHUMURI.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. VARGHESE MATHEW, S/O.LATE MATHAI, PULLIYATTEL HOUSE, KUZHUMURI.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. SKARIA.T.P, S/O.LATE PATHROSE, THUNNAMALIYIL HOUSE, MAMALASSERY.P.O, RAMAMANGALAM, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. T.T.VARGHESE, S/O.VARKEY THOMAS, THUNNAL HOUSE, KUZHUMURI.P.O,MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.N.SUKUMARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RFA 812/08 -2- RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------------------ 1. MAR MICHAEL ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, (MAR MICHAEL JACOBITE SYRIAN CHRISTIAN CHURCH) MAMALASSERY KARA, MAMALASSERY POST, RAMAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K.P.MATHEW KATHANAR (PRIEST), KARIVALETHU HOUSE, MAMALASSERY.P.O, RAMAMANGALAM )( DELETED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. PUNNOOSE YOHANNAN, ARACKAL HOUSE, (WRONGLY TYPED AS AREEKAL HOME IN THE IMPUGNED )( DELETED JUDGEMENT) -DO- -DO- 4. MATHEW SKARIA, KARIVALETHU HOUSE, )( DELETED -DO- -DO- 5. SKARIA, S/O OUSEPH, VADAKKEPOOMKOTTIL HOUSE, ONAKKOOR KARA & VILLAGE, ANCHALPETTY.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. LEOKUNJU, S/O.ZACHARIA, VETTIKKATHADATHIL HOUSE, MAMALASSERY.P.O, RAMAMANGALAM, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. VARKEY GEORGE, MANGALATH HOUSE, ANCHALPETTY KARA POST, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, )( DELETED MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. CHACKO MATHEW, VEMBANAD HOUSE, NEERKUZHIKKARA, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA )( DELETED TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. C.K.JOHN KATHANAR (PRIEST) CHIRAKKADAKUNNEL HOUSE, KIZHUMURI KARA.P.O, RAMAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 10. CHACKO ABRAHAM KATHANAR (PRIEST) )( DELETED PULLIYATTEL HOUSE, -DO- -DO- 11. VARKEY, S/O THOMMAN, THALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, (WRONGLY TYPED AS THADIYAPARAMBIL IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT) MAMALASSERY.P.O, )( DELETED RAMAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ENAKULAM DISTRICT. 12. ITTAN, S/O VARKEY, THACHITHALAYIL HOUSE, WRONGLY TYPED ON KUMBALATH HOUSE IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, -DO- -DO- RFA 812/08 -3- 13. KURIAN, S/O CHACKO, KUMBALATHU HOUSE, -DO- -DO- 14. CHERIA KURIAKOSE, S/O.CHERIA, THURUTHIKATTIL HOUSE, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, ANCHALPETTY POST, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADDL.RESPONDENTS 15. FR.GEORGE VEMBANATTU VEMBANATTU HOUSE, NEERKUZHI KARA MANEED VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (ADDL.R15 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.18.11.2010 ON IA 2746/09) 16. YACOB, AGED 40, S/O.LATE ITHAPPIRI KURIAN RESIDING AT THAMARASSERIL, RAMAMANGALAM MAMALASSERY, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKUAM DT 17. JAMES K AV, AGED 49, S/O.K O VARGHESE, KUZHIPPILLIL HOUE, KUZHIMURI, RAMAMANGALAM -DO- -DO- 18. THOMAS V., AGED 71, S/O.VARGHESE THALAYAPARAPIL, PAMPAKKUDA, MEMURI VILLAGE MAVUTTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DT (ADDL.R16 TO R18 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.25.3.2010 ON IA 683/10) (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4, 7, 8, 10 AND 11 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANTS AS PER ORDER DT.18.12.08 ON IA NO.5444/08) ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM )( SRI.B.G.BHASKAR )(FOR R6 SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R5,9 & 12 SRI.N SUKUMARAN & S.SHYAM FOR ADDL RES16 TO18 & R22 SRI.K.PAUL KURIAKOSE )( SRI.S.DILEEP )(FOR ADDL.R15 SRI.M.Y.VARGHESEKUTTY)( THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.11.2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------------------------------------- RFA No.812 of 2008-D --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November 2011 Judgment This appeal is filed after obtaining leave of this court against the judgment and decree in OS No.197/77 dated 06.10.1998. 2. The suit related to the affairs of Mar Michael Orthodox Syrian Church, Mamalassery. The plaintiffs in the suit contended that the church in question is a unit of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and is governed by the 1934 Constitution. Various other facts are also stated in the appeal which are not very relevant in the present context. Suffice is to say that the appellants did not agree with the allegations in the plaint. 3. It appears that when the suit was in progress, the parties to the suit arrived at a compromise and a compromise petition was filed before the lower court on RFA 812/08 2 01.10.1998. Accepting the compromise, a decree was passed in the suit on 06.10.1998. The grievance of the appellants is that the suit was one filed in a representative capacity and if that be so, the compromise entered into between the parties could not have been accepted by the court below without resorting to the provisions under Order 23 Rule 3B and Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC. The decree, therefore, is said to be bad. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in this appeal, on the other hand, pointed out that there is nothing to show that there was publication as provided under Order 1 Rule 8. If that be so, the appeal is ill-advised. 5. This court verified the records, especially, the B-diary and other records and was unable to locate any material, which shows that the defendants were sued in a representative capacity, in other words, Order I Rule 8 publication does not appear to have been effected. If that be so, this appeal filed on the premise that the defendants RFA 812/08 3 were on the party array in a representative capacity and the decree is binding on all similarly situated, cannot be justified and there is nothing to show that Order 1 Rule 8 has been complied with. This appeal is without any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta RFA 812/08 4