Kerala High Court
Thomas Elias vs Malankara Suriyani Knanaya ... on 15 March, 2016
Author: K.Abraham Mathew
Bench: K.Abraham Mathew
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/25TH PHALGUNA, 1937
OP(C).No. 2455 of 2015 (O)
-----------------------------------------
I.A.NO.2731/2015 AND I.A.NO.2732/2015 IN O.S.NO.506/2013 OF THE ADDITIONAL
MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S)/PLAINTIFF :
----------------------------------------------
THOMAS ELIAS, AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O.LATE P.T.ELIAS PAAREL, PAAREL HOUSE,
NOW RESIDING IN C-203 CHANDRAKIRAN APARTMENT, 42/1,
NETHAJI ROAD, FRAZE TOWN, BANGLORE 560 005.
BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI (VENNELA)
RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS :
--------------------------------------------------
1. MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ASSOCIATION
AT MAR APREM SEMINARY,CHINGAVANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARYSR. ELIAS ZACHARIAH PARAYIL-
686 001.
2. FR. A.T.THOMAS ARAKKAL,
PRESIDENT, OF THE KNANAYA COMMITTEE,
MALANKARA SURYIYANI KNANAYA ASSOCIATION,
MAR APREM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM -686 001.
3. KNANAYA COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARYSRI. ELIAS ZACHARIAH PARAYIL,
MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ASSOCIATION AT MAR APREM
SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM P.O,KOTTAYAM- 686 001.
4. K.K. KURUVILLA,
THE MANAGING TRUSTEE OF THE KNANAYA COMMITTEE,
MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ASSOCIATION AT
MAR APREM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM- 686 001.
5. KURIAKOSE MAR SERVERIOS ARCH BISOP AND CHIEF
METROPOLITAN OF KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE IN INDIA,
MAR APREM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM PO, KOTTAYAM- 686 001.
6. KURIAKOSE MAR GREGORIUS,
METROPOLITAN IN CHARGE OF THE KALLISSERY DIVISION
OF THE KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE, BETH MAHRIN, THIRUVALLA-686 012
..2/-
..2..
OP(C).No. 2455 of 2015 (O)
-----------------------------------------
7. KURIAKOSE MAR IVANIOUS METROPOLITAN IN CHARGE OF
THE RANNY DIVISION OF THE KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE, ANGADY P.O,
RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 686 525.
8. AYOUB MAR SYLVANOUS,
ARCH BISHOP OF THE KNANAYA SYRIYAN CHURCHES IN AMERICA
CANADA & EUROPE, MAR APREM SEMINARY,CHINGAVANAM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM-686 001.
* ADDITIONAL R9 IMPLEADED
9. T.O.ELIAS,
TRUSTEE, THE MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA SAMUDAYAM,
MAR APREM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN- 689 673.
* ADDITIONAL R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15.03.2016 IN
I.A.NO.16028 OF 2015.
R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.VISWANATHAN
SRI.SUNIL N.SHENOI
R5 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
ADDL.R9 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-03-2016,
ALONG WITH OP(C).No.1761 OF 2015 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
OP(C).No. 2455 of 2015 (O)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
----------------------------------------
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF O.S NO.506/2013 OF THE ADDITIONAL
MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24/09/2013 IN I.A NO.2434/2013 IN
O.S NO.506/2013 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT,
KOTTAYAM.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 11/06/2015 OF
6TH RESPONDENT NOMINATING SRI. T.O. ELIAS AS A NOMINATED
MEMBER OF THE NEW KNANAYA ASSOCIATION.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 07/07/2015 OF
ADV. RAJEEV P.NAIR, KOTTAYAM GIVING INFORMATION ABOUT
THE DIRECTION OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM
IN ORDER DATED 07/07/2015 IN I.A.NO.1678/2015 OF THE SAID
COURT.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 03/08/2015 OF
DR. ABRAHAM PUNNOOSE, THE PRESENT SECRETARYOF
KNANAYA ASSOCIATION , PROPOSING TO COVENE THE KNANAYA
ASSOCIATION OF 25/08/2015.
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19/08/2015 DELIVERED IN
O.P(C).NO.2086/2015 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 21/09/2015 OF THE PRESENT
SECRETARY OF THE KNANAYA ASSOCIATION INFORMING TO
CONDUCT A MEETING OF THE KNANAYA ASSOCIATION
ON 13/10/2015.
EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.2732/2015 FILED BY PETITIONER IN
O.S.NO.506/2013 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM`
EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.2731/2015 FILED BY PETITIONER IN
O.S.NO.506/2013 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM.
EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19/10/2013 IN TPOP NO.149/2013 OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM.
EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 58/15 DATED 27/07/2015 OF
THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, KOTTAYAM.
EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21.08.2015 IN
O.P.(C)NO.2086/2015 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
OP(C).No. 2455 of 2015 (O)
----------------------------------------
EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.10.2015 PASSED
BY THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM, WHILE
DISPOSING I.A.NOS.1884/2015, 1940/2015 AND 2732/2015 FILED IN
O.S.NO.506/2013 OF THE SAID COURT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TOJUDGE.
Msd.
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
O.P.(C).Nos.1761 & 2455 of 2015, 56, 103 & 246 of 2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in all the Original Petitions except O.P.1761 of 2015 is a member of Malankara Suriyani Knanaya Church. The petitioner in O.P.No.1761 of 2015 is Knanaya committee which is the third respondent in all the other Original Petitions. All these Original Petitions arise from O.S.No.506 of 2013 of Additional Munsiff, Kottayam filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:
a) to declare that defendants 1 to 3 are not having any right or authority to call for the meeting of 1st defendant association without permission from 5th defendant and that they have violated clause 124 of the Bhadrasana Constitution.
b) to declare that the defendants 1 to 3 have no authority to amend the Constitution of the Bhadrasanam as proposed in the draft Constitution Amendment Memorandum approved along with the plaint, and to declare it as illegal, void and outcome of abuse of authority and beyond the jurisdiction of defendant Association, in view of clause-98B of the Bhadrasana Constitution.
2. The object of the suit is mainly to assert the supremacy of the 5th respondent Arch Bishop and Chief Metropolitan of Knanaya Arch Diocese, who is the 5th respondent in all these Original Petitions filed by the plaintiff.
3. The prayers in O.P No.2455 of 2015 are to declare that all actions taken by the first respondent Knanaya Association at its meeting held on 25.8.2015 after the passing of the status quo O.P.(C).Nos.1761 & 2455 of 2015, 56, 103 & 246 of 2016 2 order by this court in Ext P6 judgment are illegal and the proposal to convene a meeting on 13.10.2015 is illegal. The second prayer has become infructuous. Admittedly, the first respondent took some actions after the passing of the order of status quo by this court. Those actions are non est and cannot have any force.
4. The prayers in OP No.56 of 2016 are follows:
i) set aside Ext P7 and Ext P8 communications and Ext P10 order of 8th respondent, since they are issued ignoring and defying Ext P2 order of the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam, which is still in force and Ext P10 order is issued without the authority of law and ignoring the supremacy of 5th respondent over the North American Knanaya Community.
ii) issue necessary order or direction to 8th respondent, directing him not to exercise any power as provided in Ext P4A Constitution.
5. Exts P7 and P8 communications which are sought to be set aside in OP No.56 of 2016 are two letters written by the Metropolitan of America, Canada and European region to the 5th respondent Chief Metropolitan. Ext P10 which is also sought to be set aside is a letter written by the same Metropolitan to the priests, managing committee members and the members of the parishioners in North America and Canada. There is no question of setting aside letters written by one of the parties to the litigation. Moreover, Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to set aside those documents. There is no prayer to set aside any orders O.P.(C).Nos.1761 & 2455 of 2015, 56, 103 & 246 of 2016 3 passed by the trial court.
6. The main relief prayed for in O.P.(C) No.103 of 2016 is to declare that respondents 6 to 8 have no right to enter the Association hall in the seminary at Chingavanam when the meeting of the Knanaya Association is held. The other relief is to appoint a commissioner to watch the proceedings in the meeting to be held on 12.1.2016. The declaration sought for cannot be granted. The prayer to appoint a commissioner to watch the proceedings of the meeting has become infructuous.
7. The main prayer in O.P.No.246 of 2016 is to declare that the meeting convened on 25.1.2016 is illegal. This has become infructuous. The other relief is to issue directions to respondents 5 to 8 not to convene any meeting of the Metropolitan Council to take decisions on the administrative affairs of the Archdiocese till the disposal of the suit. This is a matter to be agitated before the Munsiff Court. This court cannot entertain such prayer in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. The petitioner in O.P.No.1761 of 2015 is Knanaya Committee which is one of the respondents in other petitions. The prayer is to set aside Ext P9 order and to direct the learned Munsiff to dispose of the suit itself without further delay. Ext P9 order relates to a meeting proposed to be held on 7.7.2015. This prayer has become infructuous. Having regard to the facts of the case, a O.P.(C).Nos.1761 & 2455 of 2015, 56, 103 & 246 of 2016 4 direction can be issued to the learned Munsiff to dispose of the suit without inordinate delay.
9. At the hearing it was submitted that the first respondent took some actions after the passing of the injunction order by the learned Munsiff. But there is no dispute that those decisions were approved by the respondent Arch Bishop and Chief Metropolitan of Knanaya Arch Diocese. The suit itself is to assert his supremacy. This court cannot interfere with the decisions taken by the first respondent and approved by the respondent Arch Bishop and Chief Metropolitan.
10. The suit was once dismissed for default. The first respondent took some decisions after the dismissal of the suit and its restoration later. Those decisions are not affected by the restoration of the suit though all interlocutory applications stood restored with the restoration of the suit.
In the result, these Original Petitions are disposed of. It is declared that the decisions taken by the first respondent after the passing of Ext P6 judgment are non est and they will have no force. The decisions taken by the first respondent and approved by the Arch Bishop and Chief Metropolitan of Knanaya Arch Diocese will continue to be in force subject to the result of the suit. The decisions taken by the first respondent between the dismissal of the suit for default and its restoration also will continue to be in force O.P.(C).Nos.1761 & 2455 of 2015, 56, 103 & 246 of 2016 5 subject to the result of the suit. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this judgment, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
JUDGE
cms
/True copy/ P.S.to Judge