Madras High Court
Christopher Jeyakumar vs Ii Class Executive ... on 30 January, 2023
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 30/01/2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.RC(MD)No.1026 of 2022
Christopher Jeyakumar : Petitioner
Vs.
1.II Class Executive Magistrate/Tashidar
Sathankulam,
Thoothukudi District.
2.State through the Inspector of Police,
Thattarmadam Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Church of India (CIPBC)
(Body incorporated under Indian Church Act, 1927
Represented by its Metropolitan
Christ Church,
Mahatma Gandhi Marg,
Lucknow-226 001.
4.Church of South India
Represented by its Moderator
No.5, Whites Road,
Royapettah,
Chennai-14.
5.Mr.S.Davidson Devasirvatham IPS,
ADGP-IS,
Mylapore,
Chennai-4.
6.Mr.Sundar
7.CSI Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese,
rep. By its Treasurer,
D.Mohan Raj Arumainayagam, : Respondents
(R7 is impleaded as per the order
of this court, dated 24/11/2022
in Crl.MP(MD)No.14195 of 2022 in
Crl.RC(MD)No.1026 of 2022)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section
397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for
records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent
in his proceedings in Na.Ka.A6/631/2002, dated 23/08/2022
and set aside the same as illegal and to pass any other
order or orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer
For R1 and R2 : Mr.T.Senthilkumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For 3rd respondent : Un-served
For 4th Respondent : No appearance
For 5th Respondent : Mr.C.Arulvadivel @ Sekar
for Mr.K.Dinesh
O R D E R
This criminal revision has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.A6/631/2002, dated 23/08/2022.
2.The facts in brief:- Originally, the Churches were established by the English people in India through Church of England. In the above said process, three Associations namely Church Missionary Society (CMS), Society for Propagation of Gospel (SPG), London Missionary Society (LMS) by Act of the Parliament of Britain namely Indian Church Act, 1927 was enacted. The 3rd respondent Church was incorporated in the above said Special Act. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3
3.After the independence, the above said Church became called as Church of India, Pakistan and Burma and Ceylon in short 'CIPBC'. But some Associations defected and formed a new Association called 'Church of South India' (CSI), on 27/09/1947 only for the purpose of worship. During that time, ex-communicated themselves from the membership of Church of India (CIPBC). But the properties, which belong to Church of India never transferred to the Church of South India. Though the above said properties vested as per the Indian Church Act, 1927, the transfer of the properties cannot be made.
4.The petitioner is a native of Mudalur and a member of St.Michael and All Angles Church, Mudalur. In violation of the Special provisions, the 4th respondent introduced Thuthi Arathanai in violation of the places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
5.Now the properties, which belongs to the above said CIPBC has been grabbed by the 4th respondent herein and also in violation of sections 3 and 6 of the Places of Worship Act, 1961. So the formation of CSI itself is illegal. The property situated in Survey No.330/3 measuring about 87 cents and in Survey No.4/2 measuring about 35 cents was possessed by his father with the permission of the CIPBC for the purpose of running the children home or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 for any other activities for the benefit of the members keeping the traditions and orthodoxy of the Anglican faith. From the year 1997 onwards, the petitioner is running the children's Home through YMCA. Due to Covid-19, the above said Home was closed. After lifting of the Lock Down period, he made arrangements for reopening the school. At that time, the 4th respondent wrote a letter to him to hand over the key to CSI Priest. The petitioner issued a legal notice. The 5th respondent, who is the own brother of the 6th respondent, who attached with the 4th respondent, damaged the building and stolen away the properties and criminal intimidation was also made, on 29/01/2022. When the police was called them, they snatched the key of the building from the petitioner and he was directed to attend the enquiry. With the influence of the 5th respondent, they refused to hand over the key. So over the same, he made a complaint, on 13/02/2022. So he filed WP(MD)No.4128 of 2022 seeking a direction to return the key. But in the meanwhile, proceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C was initiated in LIR No.26 of 2022. That was also forwarded to the RDO. Later, it was forwarded to the Tasildhar. Because of the above said development, the above said petition was dismissed. In the proceedings, dated 23/08/2022, the 1st respondent directed the 4th respondent to hand over the key to the Priest, which is not legal in nature. The above said order is challenged here.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5
6.Heard both sides.
7.For better appreciating the issue involved in this case, let us have recap upon the controversy.
8.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the properties situated in Survey Nos.330/3 and 4/2 originally belonged to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (SPG) and later, in 1963 by way of transfer of Trust, the assets and liabilities of SPG were transferred to Church of South India Trust Association. The above said document was registered as Document No.4863/1963 in the office of the Registrar, North Chennai.
9.According to the respondents, the above said document comprised about 106 items of the properties all over Tamil Nadu and neighbouring States of the same. So far as the disputed property namely Survey No.4/2 measuring about 4.50 acres. In so far as Survey No.330/3 is concerned, it measures about 1.14 acres. In the above said survey number, a compound wall was constructed and revenue records are standing in the name of SPG. But however, because of the above said transfer of assets and liabilities, it also now lies in the hands of CSI. So far as the survey No.4/2 is concerned, the residence of Parish https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 Priest as well as the constructed a compound, apart from that, four guest rooms are also available. Rest of the area is used as a playground for St.Micheal's Higher Secondary school. So according to the respondents, the above said facts are detailed in the counter, that was filed by the 6th respondent in WP(MD)No.4182 of 2022. It is also stated that the Association, by name Church of India, Uttar Pradesh is a non existent Association and it is noway present in South India and the letter, which is relied by the petitioner is a fake and fabricated one. It is further stated that now the petitioner wants to grab the property bearing survey No.4/2 wherein, the respondents constructed the above said Normal Hall. The property tax is also standing in the name of Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association. The electricity connection is also standing in the name of Parish Priest of Tuticorin Diocese. The Hall was constructed for conducting prayer. But however, the Church permitted one Charitable Organisation to utilise for their purpose. Thereafter, Teacher Training Institute was also running. Now the Panchayat provided work out machines for Gym and the Church also permitted the youth Association to manage the Gym. So it is denied that the petitioner is in management as well as his father.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7
10.A rejoinder was also filed by this petitioner with regard to the above said contentions raised in the above said writ petition stating and refuting all the allegations that have been made in the counter.
11.As mentioned above, a re-joinder has been filed by the petitioner stating that he is a Member of the Diocese of the Council. But however, he is not a Member of CSI, which is an illegal forum, as mentioned in the petition. Even though, the properties belong to the above said CIPBC, CSI has been in possession illegally. The contention that CIPBC is a non-existing Association was also disputed. CSI was formed as stated above, illegally by amalgamating several Associations. Now, it has been run by the influential and other antisocial elements.
12.It is further stated in the rejoinder that with regard to the issue between the Church of India and Church of South India, so many litigations were pending from 1970 and another matter is also pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for final argument. It is also further stated that the letter, that was issued by the Church of India is a genuine one. Regarding the property, it has been stated that it belongs to Tinnevelly Diocese of Church of India. Neither Tirunelveli nor Tinnevelly are the Diocese of Church of India. By renaming the Church as Church of South https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8 India, created documents as if the property belongs to Tinnevelly Diocese.
13.In the light of the above said rival submissions, let us go to the argument that was advanced by the parties.
14.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent has no locus standi to order return of the key to Parish Priest and the property worth about Rs.40,00,000/- has been taken illegally by the respondents Diocese.
15.The learned Additional Public Prosector would submit that the 4th respondent locked the building only as temporary arrangement, which is also supported by the Revenue Divisional Officer's order. The second respondent supported the case of the petitioner. In so far as the 5th respondent is concerned, he is a neutral person and noway involved in the dispute between the petitioner and others. The 3rd respondent's property belongs to the Church and the first respondent submitted that the petitioner is only a permissive visitor to the Hall. Originally, no claim was made. But later only on the basis of the fake power of attorney document, the petitioner claims right over the property and the Church of India, which is claimed by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 petitioner is non-existing one. The Church Council is a Apex body and the petitioner is not a bona fide person and the identity of the letter, that was issued in favour of the petitioner is also disputed by him.
16.In the light of the above said pleadings, in the earlier writ petition, now let us go to the order that was passed by the Tashildhar.
17.The revenue records have been shown that the property is standing in the name of SPG Mission and in the management of the Parish Priest of Muthalur. As mentioned earlier, this order only is now under challenge.
18.On going through the entire records and the arguments advanced on either side, some sort of contention has been raised by the petitioner. Even with regard to the formation of the Church of South India Diocese, challenged the documents of transfer of the assets, which is claimed by CSI. It is also seen that number of litigations have also pending between SPG and CSI. When larger issues are involved and more particularly, one of the proceedings has been dropped by the Executive Magistrate on the ground that the administration and custody of the Perish Priest, I am of the considered view that no revision will lie, at the instance of the petitioner and he has to work out his https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10 remedy through civil proceedings. So, I am not going into the other aspects as to whether the letter and the power of attorney granted in favour of the petitioner is a fake one, whether the CSI is a non-existing Association and whether the document of transfer of title deed, dated 04/12/1963 etc., facts and these things beyond the scope of the revision.
19.As contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as a temporary arrangement, the above said key has been handed over. Since no breach of peace is also noticed, the above said proceedings have been dropped. So with regard to the title over the above said property situated in Survey No.4/2, the parties have to work out their remedy through appropriate civil proceedings.
20.So, I find no reason to interfere into the order that was passed by the first respondent.
21.In the result, this criminal revision fails and the same is dismissed.
30/01/2023 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11 To,
1.II Class Executive Magistrate/Tashidar Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Thattarmadam Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12 G.ILANGOVAN, J er Crl.RC(MD)No.1026 of 2022 30/01/2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis