IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RSA.No. 637 of 2008() --------------------- AS.186/2006 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.1045/2005 of III ADDL. M.C.,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------- CHERU, S/O. CHERUVATHOOR MATHEW, RESIDING AT XIII/172, KOTTAYIL ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PARISH METROPOLITAN OF SIMHASANA CHURCH ST.GEORGE JACOBAYA SIMBASANA CHURCH, P.O.MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM 682 314 2. VICAR, ST.MARY'S JACOBAYA SIMHASANA CHURCH, ARTHATT, THRISSUR 680 521. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------- R.S.A No.637 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th November, 2008. JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S.1045/2005 on the file of the Third Additional Munsiff's Court, Thrissur is the appellant in this second appeal. The said suit as amended was one for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants viz., the Metropolitan and the Vicar of St. Mary's Jacobaya Simhasana Church, Aarthatt, Thrissur to conduct spiritual rites and holy sacraments to the plaintiff as a member of the Parish. Both the courts have dismissed the suit refusing to grant the reliefs prayed for by the appellant. Apart from the vague and contradictory stand taken by the plaintiff, on his own showing that he had sent Ext.B2 letter dated 7.3.2002 to the church seeking permission to relieve him from membership as a parishioner. He proceeded to state in the said letter that if no reply was received within ten days it shall be deemed that his request has been allowed. The specific stand taken by the defendants in the written statement is that the plaintiff's request was allowed and therefore reply was given to him. On the wordings of Ext.B2 letter R.S.A. No: 637/08 2 he could not have expected to have any reply because he had imposed a self-working condition to have his request allowed by efflux of time. Both the courts have also held that the subsequent payment of membership fee as evidenced by Ext.A1 receipt dated 7.4.2002 by the plaintiff was with ulterior motives. The stand taken by the defendants in the written statement was that the subscription amount was not received by the defendants but was received by a temporary employee. Hence Ext.A1 will not have the effect of reviving the plaintiff's membership as a parishioner of the church in question. The courts below have also noticed that the plaintiff had subsequently accepted the status of a parishioner of another church. Apart from the fact that the prayer in the suit is vague, that is something which the court cannot supervise or oversee. The defendants had taken the specific stand that the plaintiff had ceased to be a parishioner of the church. If so, merely from Ext.A1 receipt it could not be held that his membership was revived. The prayer of the plaintiff was vague and was rightly refused by the court below. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. The questions of law formulated in the memorandum of second appeal also do no arise for consideration in R.S.A. No: 637/08 3 this second appeal. Accordingly this R.S.A is dismissed in limine. V. RAMKUMAR JUDGE jj