IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 AS.No. 805 of 1998(A) --------------------- OS.64/1977 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANTS/1ST PLAINTIFF AND ADDL.3RD PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.K.G.EASO, S/O.GHEEVARGHESE, KOTTAKKATTU PALARIMKUNNATHIL HOUSE, VAZHAMUTTOM OMALLUR KARA, PATHANAMTHITTA 2. K.T.GEORGEKUTTY, S/O.LATE K.THOMAS KOTTAKKAKETHU HOUSE, VAZHAMUTTOM PO OMALLOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA BY ADV. SRI.P.J.PHILIP SRI.N.SANKARA MENON RESPONDENTSDEFENDANTS 3 TO 7 AND ADDL.PLAINTIFF NO.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PATHROSE IDICULA, PALAPPAMANNIL VAZHAMUTTOM OLMALLUR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA 2. P M PHILIP, KALATHURATTU VAZHAMUTTOM OLMALLUR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA 3. HIS GRACE PHILIPOSE MAR ESUEBIOUS,METROPOLITAN BASIL ARAMANA, KOKKANKUNNU, PATHANAMTHITTA 4. PAPPACHAN, S/O.THOMAS, MATHIYETTU KIZHAKKETHIL VAZHAMUTTAM OMALLUR VILLAGE 5. DANIEL, S/O.SKARIA, THEKKAKOLLADIYIL VAZHAMUTTAM MURI, OMALLUR VILLAGE 6. M SAMUEL, S/O.MATHAN, NADUVILAMURIYIL VAZHAMUTTAM MURI, OMALLUR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA ADV. SRI.A.K.CHINNAN SMT.GIGI MATHEW THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.08.2011, THE COURT ON 02/08/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- AS No.805 of 1998 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of August 2011 Judgment This appeal is directed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree in OS No.64/77 before the District Court, Ernakulam. A very narrow point survives for consideration in this appeal. 2. The plaintiff in the suit sought the following reliefs : A)Declaring that the defendants 1 to 4 and their partisans have become apostates of the faith of the Mar Behanan Jacobite Syrian Church and deviated from the object of its foundation. B)In the alternative declaring that the plaintiffs and their followers who are loyal to the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East have the right to conduct religious service in the said church on alternate weeks and to use its cemetery to bury their dead without any restriction and to have AS 805/98-A 2 exclusive use and possession of item 2 in the schedule hereunder. C)Restraining the defendants and their partisans by a perpetual injunction from interfering in the affairs of the plaint c church and cemetery, particularly in the worship and religious services conducted by the plaintiffs and their followers, in the church and cemetery and in item 2 in the schedule hereunder. D)Allowing the plaintiffs to recover the costs incurred by them in this suit from the defendants. At the time of final hearing, prayers A and B were given up and relief was confined to prayer C. The lower court has stated that the suit is not one in a representative capacity. That appears to be wrong since the plaintiffs had taken out paper publication to that effect. 3. At the time of hearing the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that he is pressing only one issue before this court, i,.e, they only want a right to offer annual prayers at the respective tombs in the AS 805/98-A 3 cemetery of the first defendant church. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they have no objection to the reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs, provided they follow the normal procedure followed by the first defendant church in such matters, with the approval of the Parish Assembly. 5. The only dispute is regarding annual prayers to be offered at the place of burial of the relatives of the appellants. The main objection raised by the respondents is that if at all permission is being granted to the plaintiffs to that limited extent, they shall not be allowed to have a priest of their choice, but they shall abide by the rules of the respondents' church and the priest of the defendants' church and if that is done, there can be no objection from the side of the respondents. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents appears to be fair in his submissions. The plaintiffs cannot insist that they should have a procedure of their own or a priest of their choice, in a church which does AS 805/98-A 4 not belong to them for offering prayers at the burial place. Under these circumstances, it is only reasonable to impose the condition that if the plaintiffs want to offer annual prayers at the cemetery at the defendants' church, they will be permitted to do so by the defendants provided they abide by the same rules followed Parish Assembly of the first defendant church. It is made clear that the plaintiffs are not entitled to offer prayers at the church according to their convenience, but they should follow the rules which are followed by the Parish Assembly of the church. The appeal is disposed of as above. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta AS 805/98-A 5