Mathews Mar Koorilos (Dead) And Anr. ... vs M. Pappy (Dead) And Anr. Etc.

5. The trial court vide common judgment dated 06.03.1986 dismissed the suit O.S. No.17 of 1976 filed by the respondents and decreed the appellant’s suit O.S. No.187 of 1977, declaring that the appellants have the right to conduct religious services in the plaint church and cemetery. The trial court granted permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants and persons who do not obey the plaintiffs/appellants from entering the church and the plaint schedule properties and conducting religious services, and obstructing others who obey the plaintiffs/appellants. The 3 respondents/defendants were also restrained from obstructing the appellants in completing the construction of the Kattachira church building or attending to its repairs.

6. Being aggrieved, the respondents/defendants filed appeals A.S. Nos.140 and 142 of 1986 in O.S. No.187 of 1977 before the High Court of Kerala challenging the common judgment dated 06.03.1986. The Single Judge dismissed both the appeals and held as under:-

7. Being aggrieved, the defendants/respondents filed appeals A.F.A. Nos.26-27 of 1997 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench vide common judgment dated 04.04.2000 allowed CRP No.1314 of 1998 and disposed of AFA Nos.26-27 of 1997 and set aside the findings of Single Judge. The Division Bench recorded its conclusions as under:-

10. Samudayam Suit:- The Patriarch group in the year 1938 filed Samudayam suit in the District Court, Kottayam for a declaration of their title as trustees of Samudayam properties (common properties 6 of the Malankara Church) and for a further declaration that the defendants to that suit belonging to Catholicos group, were not lawful trustees. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 18.01.1943 against which the plaintiff thereon filed an appeal which was allowed on 08.08.1946 and the suit was decreed 1 by majority of Judges by 2:1. The matter was carried to this Court. This Court directed2 the High Court to rehear the appeal on all the points. Thereafter appeal was reheard and was allowed vide judgment dated 13.12.1956. The suit was decreed. The defendants, Catholicos group, filed an appeal in this Court which was allowed on 12.09.1958 as per Moram Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira and others AIR 1959 SC 31. Samudayam suit has been elaborated and discussed in paras (17) to (21) in K.S. Varghese and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church and others (2017) 15 SCC 333.

19. Metropolitan of Quilon Diocese was exercising control over St. Mary’s Church is also evident from various document adduced in evidence referred to in detail in the judgment of the trial court as under:-

20. The above exhibits referred to in the judgment of the trial court namely appointment of the Priests to the plaint church by the Metropolitan and the regular payment of salary to the Priests so appointed and the church sending its delegates for representing it in the Malankara Church Association and other documents would amply show that the plaint church has been a constituent of Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286 20 Metropolitan Malankara and the churches and its properties come under the spiritual and temporal control of Catholicos.

between like Catholicos, Malankara Metropolitan, and Diocesan Metropolitan, etc. It is not necessary for the Pope and the Patriarch to appoint Vicar because management of a Church is not a religious ritual.” We endorse the above view taken in K.S. Varghese case33 that the 1934 Constitution cannot be said to be in violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

23. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench is in contradiction to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Thukalan 33 K.S. Varghese and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church and others (2017) 15 SCC 333 23 Paula Avira34, P.M.A. Metropolitan35 and K.S. Varghese case36 and the same cannot be sustained. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and these appeals are allowed.