IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 RSA.No. 202 of 2007() --------------------- AS.44/2001 of DISTRICT COURT,TRIVANDRUM OS.178/1993 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... : APPELLNTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE BIBLE FAITH MISSION INDIA, REPRESENTED BY J.JESUDASAN,S/O.JOEL, RESIDING AT P.A.X/1206 A,KUDISIKAVILAKOM, PARASSALA. 2. J.JESUDASAN, S/O.JOEL, GOVERNMENT SERVANT, RESIDING AT P.A.X/1206 A, KUDISIKAVILAKOM, PARASSALA. 3. Y.ISRAEL,S/O.YOVEL, MISSION WORK AND NOW RESIDING AT TC NO.5/809, G.C.NAGAR, MANNAMMOOLA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-5(DIED). BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. THE BIBLE FAITH MISSION OF SOUTH INIDA, A SOCIETY - REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MOSES SWAMIDAS,MOUNT SENOY(MALAMCHUTTY), PARASUVAIKKAL PO.,PARASSALA. 2. THE CHURCH OF GOD IN SOUTH INDIA, ECCLESIA PALARIVOTTOM - A SOCIETY - REPRESENTED BY REV.THARAKAN, RESIDING AT ECCLESIA, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-24. 3. M.DAVID, MISSION WORK AND RESIDING AT PALLIVILA HOUSE, KARIMANOOR, PARASSALA. 4. L.RAJAYYAN,HOUSE HOLD AFFAIRS, RESIDING AT MELEKANCHIVILA VEEDU, IRUMPIL(DIED). 5. D.SAMUEL, S/O.DANIEL, MISSION WORK, RESIDING AT THEKKAPLANKALAVILA VEEDU, PARASUVAIKKAL (VIA), PARASSALA. 6. K.SOMAN, CHERUMANGALATHU VEEDU, PARASUVAIKKAL, PARASSALA. 7. MOSES SWAMIDAS, S/O.NARAYANAN VELOO, NOW RESIDING AT MOUNT SENOY (MALAMCHUTTU) PARASUVAIKKAL, PARASSALA. 8. REV. GEORGE THARAKAN, RESIDING AT ECCLESIA, CHURCH OF GOD IN SOUTH INDIA, PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI-24. 9. B.PADMARAJAN, PALLIVILA VEEDU, AMARAVILA, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE (DIED) 10. PONNAMMA, PALLIVILA VEEDU, AMARAVILA, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.JOSE SMT.TESSY JOSE SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== R.S.A. NO. 202 OF 2007 =========================== Dated this the 26th day of February, 2007 JUDGMENT Plaintiffs in O.S.178/1993 on the file of Sub Court, Neyyattinkara are the appellants. Defendants are the respondents. Appellants instituted the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession and for a direction to respondents to account the income from the property. First appellant is stated to be a voluntary organisation represented by appellants 2 and 3 its representatives. It was contended that first appellant association started functioning in 1912 under the presidentship of one Charles Vedanthachari and plaint A and B schedule properties are under the control and management of the association and the meeting convened on 13.10.1957 was unauthorised and illegal and the resolution passed in that meeting authorising Eliazer to assign the properties belonging to the R.S.A.202/07 2 Association to the Church of God in South India the second respondent, is nonest and not binding on the appellants. It is on that basis a decree for declaration that first appellant is the owner in possession of plaint A and B schedule properties or in alternative for recovery possession of the properties were sought. Eighth respondent in the written statement contended that first appellant is a fictitious organisation and appellants 2 and 3 are self styled office bearers of an imaginary organisation and Charles Vedanthachari is the founder of an organisation by name Bible Faith Mission India which is the eighth respondent. On the death of Vedanthachari, Devasahayam became the President and on his death A.Shiec became the President. One P.V.Jacob filed O.S.135/1974 in which first defendant was not a party and first defendant filed O.S.356/1980 before Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and appellants are not entitled to the relief sought for. Respondents 2 and 9 in their written statement contended that the suit is R.S.A.202/07 3 barred by resjudicata in view of the judgment in O.S.356/1980 and A.S.718/1976 which was confirmed in S.A.221/1979 where it was found that the resolution transferring the assets of first respondent to the second respondent is final and irreversible and therefore the suit is not maintainable. 2. Learned Munsiff on the evidence of Pw1 and Exts.A1 to A16 and B1 to B28 dismissed the suit holding that appellants have failed to establish any right in the plaint schedule property and in view of Exts.B25 and B26 judgments in A.S.102/1984 and S.A.221/1979, case of appellants that the General Body meeting was invalid and there was no merger with the Church of South India is unsustainable. Appellants challenged the judgment before District Court, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S.44/2001. Learned District Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the findings of learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the second appeal. R.S.A.202/07 4 3. Learned counsel appearing for appellants were heard. 4. The argument of the learned counsel is that the courts below should not have non-suited the appellants, as suit was filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure. It was argued that as appellants were not parties to the earlier suit, courts below should have found that Exts.B25 and B26 judgments are not binding on them and a decree should have been granted. 5. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. 6. The case of appellants is that the General Body meeting convened on 13.10.1957 is invalid and the resolution passed in the meeting to merge the first respondent organisation with second respondent is invalid. That exactly was the question which was agitated in O.S.356/1980. As rightly found by courts below in Ext.B26 the question was finally settled by this court holding R.S.A.202/07 5 that the meeting merging the General Body convened on 13.10.1957 is valid and the resolution passed in the meeting merging the organisation founded by Charles Vadanthachari to the Church of God in South India is final and irreversible. In the light of the said finding, courts below rightly found that the appellants are not entitled to the decree sought for. Appeal is dismissed in limine. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006