Delhi High Court
Baptist Church Trust Association & Anr. vs Rev. Dinesh Das on 21 November, 2019
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 21st November, 2019
+ CS(OS) No.612/2018
BAPTIST CHURCH TRUST
ASSOCIATION & ANR. .... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Vineet Chadha & Mr. Ajay
Kumar, Advs.
Versus
REV. DINESH DAS ......Defendant
Through: Mr. Sandeep Aggarwal, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Sumit Ahuja &
Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
IA No.16263/2018 (of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1
and 2 CPC), IA No.11395/2019 (of the plaintiffs under Section 151
CPC) & IA No.16323/2019 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC).
1. The counsel for the plaintiffs and the senior counsel for the
defendant were heard on 19th November, 2019 and have been further
heard today.
2. The two plaintiffs viz. Baptist Church Trust Association
(BCTA) and Baptist Union of North India (Regd.) (BUNI) instituted
this suit, pleading that (i) the plaintiff no.1 BCTA is a Section 25
Company and the plaintiff no.2 BUNI is the Provincial Body of
plaintiff no.1 BCTA and registered under the provisions of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860; the main objective of plaintiff no.2
BUNI is to look after the management and control of all the properties
owned by plaintiff no.1 BCTA, Baptist Missionary Society (BMS) and
Baptist Missionary Society Corporation (BMSC), as well as to utilize
CS(OS) No.612/2018 Page 1 of 16
the same for the various educational institutions, Churches etc.; (ii)
BMS through BMSC owned several properties in India including the
property bearing No.5, Saraswati Marg, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road,
Karol Bagh, Delhi and the name of BMS is duly mutated in the
revenue records as the owner of the said property; (iii) BMS, vide
Deed of Appointment of New Trustees appointed plaintiff no.1
BCTA, a trustee in place of the said BMSC in respect of several
immovable properties, to be held by the plaintiff no.1 BCTA, for the
same objectives and purposes for which the said properties were
earlier held by BMSC as trustee; (iv) by virtue of the said Deed of
Appointment, plaintiff no.1 BCTA is owner of the Karol Bagh
property aforesaid and where a Church viz. Baptist Church Karol
Bagh is being run and the said Church is affiliated with plaintiff no.2
BUNI; (v) the plaintiff no.2 BUNI is the appointing authority vested
with the power and authority to appoint Pastor of the Church, who is
empowered to manage the day-to-day affairs of the Church and to
maintain and take care of the same; (vi) the members of the Church
elect a Committee known as the Caretaker Committee or the Deacons
Committee, of which the Pastor is the Chairman, and the said
Committee, under the guidance and supervision of the Pastor, takes
care of the day-to-day affairs of the Church; (vii) the plaintiff no.2
BUNI, for several decades has been appointing the Pastor of the Karol
Bagh Church and been replacing, removing and / or transferring the
Pastor; (viii) on 14th December, 2007, plaintiff no.2 BUNI transferred
the defendant from Palwal and appointed the defendant as the new
Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church; (ix) on 18th February, 2009, the
CS(OS) No.612/2018 Page 2 of 16
plaintiff no.2 BUNI asked the defendant to withdraw from the Karol
Bagh Church; (x) however on request of the Deacons and
Congregation of the Karol Bagh Church to plaintiff no.2 BUNI to re-
consider the said decision, plaintiff no.2 BUNI acceded to the request
and allowed the defendant to continue as the Pastor of the Karol Bagh
Church; (xi) on 21st July, 2012, one Prem Chand Indriyas filed a suit
in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi against
one Clement Kotti and others including the defendant herein; (xii) the
defendant in his written statement in the said suit admitted that the
defendant is the current Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church, having been
appointed by the plaintiff no.2 BUNI; (xiii) on 15 th January, 2016, the
plaintiff no.2 BUNI formed a three member Committee with the
defendant as its Chairperson, to deal with all matters concerning the
safety, security and proper maintenance of the entire compound of the
Karol Bagh Church including the school therein, and to take action
against encroachment / nuisance in the said property and to institute
legal proceedings to protect the said property; (xiv) the plaintiff no.1
BCTA recovered possession of a property from the aforesaid Prem
Chand Indriyas and decided to utilize the same for purposes of the
Karol Bagh Church, and the keys of the property were entrusted to the
defendant as Pastor of the said Church; (xv) on 9th January, 2017, the
Secretary of the Deacons Committee informed the plaintiff no.1
BCTA of the complaint lodged by the other members of the
Committee against the defendant; (xvi) on 16th January, 2017, the
other members of the Deacons Committee informed the plaintiff no.1
BCTA of the acts of misbehavior and misconduct of the defendant and
CS(OS) No.612/2018 Page 3 of 16
called upon the plaintiffs to interfere; (xvii) on 21st January, 2017, the
defendant assured the plaintiff no.1 BCTA that the defendant has no
intention to encroach on the Karol Bagh Church property or to use any
part of it as his residence or otherwise; (xviii) on 22nd February, 2017,
the plaintiffs received a complaint from around 84 members of the
Karol Bagh Church of illegalities being committed by the defendant as
Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church; (xix) the defendant otherwise has
been seeking permission from the plaintiff no.2 BUNI for doing
various acts with respect to the Karol Bagh Church and the plaintiffs
have been issuing instructions to the defendant; (xx) the plaintiffs
were apprised of the fact that the defendant was implicated in an FIR,
and the plaintiff no.2 BUNI sought explanation from the defendant
and the defendant sent his response to the plaintiff no.2 BUNI refuting
all allegations against him; (xxi) the plaintiff no.1 BCTA on 19th
October, 2018 nominated a three member Committee pertaining to the
entire compound of the Karol Bagh Church; (xxii) vide letter dated
15th November, 2018 of the plaintiff no.2 BUNI to the defendant, the
defendant was placed under suspension with immediate effect and
directed to cease delivery of any services in the Karol Bagh Church
and further informed that the plaintiff no.2 BUNI had appointed Rev.
Anil B. Lall as the new Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church; and, (xxiii)
the defendant however was interfering with the new Pastor taking
charge of the Karol Bagh Church, and claiming that it was the
Deacons Committee which was the appointing authority.
3. On the aforesaid pleas, the plaintiffs have sought the reliefs of,
(i) declaration that the defendant has ceased to be a Pastor and
CS(OS) No.612/2018 Page 4 of 16
Chairman of the Karol Bagh Church; (ii) permanent injunction
restraining the defendant from (a) interfering in the management and
working of the Karol Bagh Church, (b) creating hindrance to Rev.
Anil B. Lall from carrying out duties as Pastor of the Karol Bagh
Church; (c) creating hinderance in the ingress and egress of the
plaintiffs, employees and worshippers to the Karol Bagh Church; (d)
dealing with the Karol Bagh Church property, and, (e) obstructing the
peaceful use and enjoyment of the Karol Bagh Church; and, (iii)
mandatory injunction directing the defendant to (A) vacate the
premises of the Karol Bagh Church, (B) remove his lock from the
gates of the Karol Bagh Church, and, (C) handover keys thereof to the
plaintiff.
4. The suit came up first before this Court on 29th November,
2018, when summons of the suit and notice of the application for
interim relief were issued to the defendant for 5 th December, 2018.
The defendant appeared and inter alia contended that the plaintiffs had
nothing to do with the Karol Bagh Church, and the said Church was
managed by a Committee of eleven members, in turn appointed by
113 members of the Karol Bagh Church.
5. Vide ad-interim order dated 5th December, 2018, the following
directions were issued:
"(A) Neither the new Pastor claimed to have been appointed
by the plaintiffs nor the defendant to interfere in the faith
seekers visiting the Church and praying therein;
CS(OS) No.612/2018 Page 5 of 16
(B) Neither of the aforesaid two Pastors to interfere in other
carrying out functions with respect to the Church including of
conducting prayers, with the new Pastor claimed to have been
appointed conducting prayers on Sundays between 9.00 AM to
10.00 AM and the defendant conducting prayers between 10.00
AM to 11.00 AM in the morning;
(C) Similarly, on all other days as well as on other hours of
Sunday, the prayer time may be divided equally between the two
Pastors;
(D) As far as Christmas prayers are concerned, informed to
be between 7.00 PM to 9.00 PM in the evening, the time be
similarly divided, with the prayers between 7.00 PM to 8.00 PM
being conducted by the new Pastor and the prayers between
8.00 PM to 9.00 PM being conducted by the defendant; and,
(E) Neither of the two Pastors to take any precipitating
action affecting the Church or its properties or causing any
harm or loss thereto."
6. The defendant has filed a written statement, pleading that (i) the
present suit is barred by Section 10 of the CPC; (ii) the cause of action
pleaded by the plaintiffs of the present suit is the removal of defendant
from post of Pastor and Chairman of the Karol Bagh Church; (iii)
prior to the institution of the present suit, the defendant as Pastor and
Chairman of the Karol Bagh Church along with the Secretary of the
Church have filed a civil suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Tis
CS(OS) No.612/2018 Page 6 of 16
Hazari Courts, Delhi for declaration and permanent injunction against
both the plaintiffs and three others in respect of the same cause of
action; (iv) in the said previously instituted suit, the plaintiffs and
others impleaded as defendants have been sought to be restrained from
interfering with the affairs of the Karol Bagh Church and for
declaration as null and void of the letter dated 6 th November, 2018
removing the defendant as Pastor and Chairman; (v) the Karol Bagh
Church was established in the year 1916 and presently has 130
families whose members are members of the General Body of the
Church, with the head of each family representing the other members
of the family; (vi) out of the said General Body, a core group of 11
members are elected and the said core group is known as the Deacons
Committee; the Pastor of the Church is elected by the General Body
with two-third majority, and the Pastor becomes the Chairman of the
Deacons Committee and administers the charge with the assistance of
the members of the Deacons Committee; all this is in accordance with
the Constitution of the Karol Bagh Church; (vii) neither of the
plaintiffs have any role in appointment of any members of the
Deacons Committee or in appointment / selection of Pastor /
Chairman, nor pay any salary or other remuneration to the Pastor or
the Deacons Committee of the Karol Bagh Church; (viii) the plaintiffs
are neither the appointing nor the removing authority of the members
of the Deacons Committee and do not contribute financially also to the
Karol Bagh Church; (ix) the defendant was appointed by the Deacons
Committee vide meeting of the Karol Bagh Church held on 19 th
February, 2009 and his appointment was confirmed by the General
CS(OS) No.612/2018 Page 7 of 16
House of the Karol Bagh Church on 29th March, 2009; (x) though the
Karol Bagh Church was earlier affiliated to the plaintiff no.2 BUNI,
but the said affiliation did not mean that the Karol Bagh Church had
come under supervision or control of either of the plaintiffs; (xi) the
General Body of the Karol Bagh Church, vide Resolution dated 18th
November, 2018 has withdrawn its affiliation to plaintiff no.2 BUNI;
(xii) it is the two plaintiffs who are trying to usurp the property of the
Karol Bagh Church; and, (xiii) the defendant was informed by the
Secretary of the Karol Bagh Church that the suspension by plaintiff
no.2 BUNI of the defendant was not accepted by the Karol Bagh
Church and its Deacons Committee, and the defendant was asked to
continue to provide his services as Pastor / Chairman of the Church.
7. The counsel for the plaintiff has argued that, (a) the plaintiff
no.1 BCTA is the owner of the property of the Karol Bagh Church; (b)
the plaintiff no.2 BUNI has authority to oversee / manage the
properties and functions of plaintiff no.1 BCTA; (c) the defendant was
appointed Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church by the plaintiff no.2
BUNI; attention in this regard is invited to page no.8 of Part III-A file
being a letter dated 14th December, 2007 of the plaintiff no.2 BUNI to
the Secretary and all members of Deacons Committee of Karol Bagh
Church, informing them of appointment of defendant as Pastor of the
Karol Bagh Church; (d) attention is invited to page no.16 of Part III-A
file, being the letter dated 19th February, 2009 of the Baptist Church
Karol Bagh to the plaintiff no.2 BUNI, asking the plaintiff no.2 BUNI
to cancel its letter dated 19th February, 2009 withdrawing the
defendant as Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church; (e) attention is invited
CS(OS) No.612/2018 Page 8 of 16
to page no.20 of Part III-A file being the letter dated 11th July, 2012 of
the Karol Bagh Church through the defendant to plaintiff no.2 BUNI,
apologizing for having hurt the sentiments of plaintiff no.2 BUNI; (f)
attention is invited to page no.26 of the Part III-A file, being a copy of
the written statement of the defendant dated 20th August, 2012 in the
suit filed by Prem Chand Indriyas aforesaid, and particularly to page
no.32 thereof where the defendant pleaded "being appointed by
Baptist Union of North India, having registered office at 13, Raj
Niwas Marg, Delhi"; (g) attention is invited to page no.79 of Part III-
A file, being the letter dated 17th June, 2016 of plaintiff no.1 BCTA to
the defendant entrusting to the defendant as Pastor of the Karol Bagh
Church, the keys of the portion of Karol Bagh Church possession
whereof was recovered, bearing the signatures of the defendant of
receipt of keys; (h) the defence of the defendant in the written
statement in this suit is contrary to the defence on oath of the
defendant in the written statement to the suit filed by Prem Chand
Indriyas; and, (i) Deacons Committee is a body of members of a
church and has no legal entity.
8. Per contra, the senior counsel for the defendant has argued that,
(i) the present suit is not maintainable as the Karol Bagh Church is not
a party thereto; (ii) in the previously instituted suit by the defendant
and the Karol Bagh Church against plaintiff no.2 BUNI, its Secretary /
Treasurer as well as the Secretary / Treasurer of plaintiff no.1 BCTA,
the questions as are sought to be raised in the present suit are sub-
judice and Section 10 of the CPC applies; (iii) attention is invited to
the plaint in the previously instituted suit as well as in the plaint in the
CS(OS) No.612/2018 Page 9 of 16
present suit; (iv) the plaintiffs, in the garb of taking orders of
injunction against the defendant, are wanting to usurp the property of
the Karol Bagh Church without making the Karol Bagh Church a
party to this suit; (v) the letter dated 14th December, 2007 of plaintiff
no.2 BUNI claimed to be the letter of appointment by plaintiff no.2
BUNI of the defendant, is addressed to the Secretary and members of
the Deacons Committee of Karol Bagh Church and only with a copy
to the defendant; it is further pointed out that the said letter is by
"BUNI Adhoc Committee / Karol Baptist Church" and that it does not
use the word "appoint" but uses the word "post"; (vi) the plaintiff no.2
BUNI was looking after all the Churches; (vii) the plaintiff no.2
BUNI, vide letter dated 19th February, 2009 had terminated the
appointment of the defendant and to which the Karol Bagh Church
had protested; (viii) however the Karol Bagh Church, vide its letter
dated 29th March, 2009 to the defendant at page no.27 of Part III-B
file, appointed / ordained the defendant as the sole Pastor of the Karol
Bagh Church; (ix) attention is invited to the minutes of the Annual
General Meeting held on 29th March, 2009 of the members of the
Karol Bagh Church, at page no.28 of Part III-B file, approving the
appointment of the defendant; (x) the defendant since then is the
Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church, under authority of the General Body
of the Karol Bagh Church, and not under the plaintiff no.2 BUNI; (xi)
attention is invited to page 11 of Part III-B file being the English
translation of the "Constitution" of the Karol Bagh Church,
particularly to the provision with respect to the Pastor of the Church,
to contend that the power to appoint Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church
CS(OS) No.612/2018 Page 10 of 16
is of the members of the General Body of the Karol Bagh Church;
(xii) it is argued that there are other proceedings also against the
plaintiffs of usurpation of Churches in India; (xiii) attention is invited
to a reply (copy of the reply is handed over in the Court and taken on
record to be tagged to Part II-A file) claimed to have been filed to IA
No.11395/2019, and to the letter dated 21st October, 2009 of Karol
Bagh Church to the plaintiff no.2 BUNI appended thereto recording
that the plaintiff no.2 BUNI had no right to interfere in the internal
administration of the Karol Bagh Church; and, (xiv) it is contended
that the cause of action of this suit and the previously instituted suit is
the same.
9. The senior counsel for the defendant also wants to argue more
with respect to the rights of members of the General Body of the Karol
Bagh Church vis-à-vis the rights of the plaintiffs, but the need to hear
on the said aspect is not felt as the present lis is only between the
plaintiffs and the defendant and the defendant does not claim to have
any rights in the Karol Bagh Church save as Pastor thereof, and the
rights if any of the members of the General Body of the Karol Bagh
Church, if at all having any independent existence or status, cannot be
adjudicated in their absence. The controversy has to be confined only
between the plaintiffs and the defendant.
10. The counsel for the plaintiffs, in rejoinder, besides urging that
the stand of the defendant in the present suit is materially different
from that in the written statement to the suit filed by Prem Chand
Indriyas, has also drawn attention to page 135 of Part III-A file being
CS(OS) No.612/2018 Page 11 of 16
the letter dated 24th July, 2017 of the Karol Bagh Church to the
plaintiff no.2 BUNI, reporting of the erection of unauthorized sign
board by another on the property of Karol Bagh Church owned by
plaintiff no.1 BCTA and seeking direction / permission from plaintiff
no.2 BUNI qua action to be taken with respect thereto. It is argued that
the same shows the falsity of the arguments of the defendant, and that
the Karol Bagh Church is admitting plaintiff no.1 BCTA to be the
owner of its property and seeking directions for management of the
Church. It is further contended that the cases against the plaintiffs,
referred to by the senior counsel for the defendant, have been stayed
by this Court. It is also pointed out that the defendant, in violation of
the interim orders in this suit, is obstructing with the functioning of
Rev. Anil B. Lall as the Pastor of the Church and is issuing
contradictory instructions.
11. The senior counsel for the defendant has drawn attention to
page 29 of Part III-B file, of withdrawal of affiliation by the Karol
Bagh Church.
12. I have considered the rival contentions for the purposes of
interim relief claimed in the present suit.
13. As opined by me hereinabove, the present dispute is confined
between the plaintiffs and the defendant and it is not for adjudication
in the present suit, even on a prima facie view, whether the Karol
Bagh Church is under administration and control of plaintiff no.2
BUNI or whether the property of the Karol Bagh Church is owned by
plaintiff no.1 BCTA. Suffice it is to state, that while the plaintiffs
CS(OS) No.612/2018 Page 12 of 16
claiming their rights aforesaid have sought to terminate the authority
of the defendant, the defendant, though not denying his initial posting
as Pastor to the Karol Bagh Church being in furtherance of the letter
dated 14th December, 2007 of plaintiff no.2 BUNI to members of the
Karol Bagh Church, contends that his posting / appointment in
pursuance thereto came to an end in 2009, and since whereafter he is
functioning as Pastor under authority of the members of the General
Body of the Karol Bagh Church. The defendant otherwise does not
claim any independent right to continue as the Pastor of the Karol
Bagh Church, except under authority of the members of the General
Body of the Karol Bagh Church. The defendant himself not claiming
any right to continue as Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church under
authority of the plaintiffs, returning a finding to the effect that the
defendant is not entitled to continue as Pastor or to perform any
functions with respect to the Karol Bagh Church or its properties
under authority of the plaintiffs poses no difficulty.
14. Axiomatically, grant of interim injunction restraining the
defendant from exercising any power as Pastor or otherwise with
respect to Karol Bagh Church or its properties and / or from
interfering with the management and functioning under authority of
the plaintiffs or as appointee / delegatee of the plaintiffs, also poses no
difficulty.
15. I may however state that prima facie, no merit is found in the
claim of the defendant of Karol Bagh Church having any existence
independent of the plaintiffs and / or of the authority of the defendant
CS(OS) No.612/2018 Page 13 of 16
as Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church having come to an end in 2009
and the defendant having continued thereafter independently of the
plaintiffs. I say so because:
A. Though the defendant claims so, but in the written
statement to the suit filed by Prem Chand Indriyas verified on 20 th
August, 2012, has unequivocally pleaded that (i) the suit was bad for
non-impleadment of BMS; (ii) BCTA, being the owner of the
property, had initially authorized and then terminated the licence of
Prem Chand Indriyas to occupy one of the rooms in the Karol Bagh
Church property; (iii) the registered office of BUNI was at 13, Raj
Niwas Marg, New Delhi (as of the plaintiff no.2 herein); and, (iv) he
was the current Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church having been
appointed by BUNI, and that Clement Kotti impleaded as defendant
no.1 was authorized by BMS and BCTA to arrange and conduct
prayer services in the Church. It is well settled that an admission in
pleadings in a former litigation, if it is unambiguous and clear, can be
used against the party making such admission, unless the admission is
explained. Reference in this regard may be made to (i) Basant Singh
Vs. Janki Singh AIR 1967 SC 341, (ii) Bishwanath Prasad Vs.
Dwarka Prasad AIR 1974 SC 117, (iii) Thimmappa Rai Vs.
Ramanna Rai (2007) 14 SCC 63, (iv) Soney Lal Vs. Deputy Director
Consolidation MANU/UP/1076/1982, (v) Devassia Mathur Vs.
Mathai MANU/DE/0455/1990, and, (vi) Dasa Singh Vs. Jasmer
Singh 2002 SCC OnLine P&H 1158.
CS(OS) No.612/2018 Page 14 of 16
B. The defendant, even thereafter, as pleaded by the
plaintiffs and supported by documents, continued to function with
respect to the Karol Bagh Church under authority of plaintiff no.2
BUNI; the defendant at that time, or in the written statement aforesaid,
did not take the plea of functioning under authority of the members of
the General Body of Karol Bagh Church, though now claims to have
been so functioning since 2009.
C. The letters of the Karol Bagh Church also to which
attention has been drawn by the counsel for the plaintiffs falsify the
claim of the defendant of Karol Bagh Church having any entity
independent of the plaintiffs; had it been so, Karol Bagh Church
would not have been seeking directions from plaintiffs for as trivial a
matter of removal of a sign post unauthorizedly put up in the property
of the Karol Bagh Church, as done vide letter dated 24th July, 2017.
D. The defendant himself in the written statement to the suit
filed by Prem Chand Indriyas admitted plaintiff no.1 BCTA to be the
owner of the Karol Bagh Church.
16. Moreover, the defendant having been inducted in the Karol
Bagh Church as a Pastor under authority from plaintiff no.2 BUNI,
cannot without first surrendering all that he was given charge of,
challenge the authority of plaintiff no.2 BUNI. The principles of
estoppel would apply.
17. The plaintiffs have thus made out a case for grant of ex pate
relief.
CS(OS) No.612/2018 Page 15 of 16
18. The defendant, till the disposal of the suit, is restrained from (i)
exercising any rights as Pastor or otherwise of the Karol Bagh Church
and its properties under authority from the plaintiffs or either of the
plaintiffs; and, (ii) interfering in any manner whatsoever with the
exercise of rights by the plaintiffs or any of the plaintiffs with respect
to the management and control of Karol Bagh Church and its
properties.
19. All the applications are disposed of in terms of above.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
NOVEMBER 21, 2019 „gsr‟..
CS(OS) No.612/2018 Page 16 of 16