Kerala High Court
St. George Orthodox Syrian Church vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 13 September, 2021
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021/19TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020
PETITIONERS:
1 ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH
CHELAKKARA, CHELAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN-680 586, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR,
*(REV.FR.ISSAC.K.P., S/O.PAULOSE, AGED 72.)
SUBSTITUTED
*THE VICAR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER CHURCH IS
SUBSTITUTED BY FR.JOSEPH MATHEW @ JOSSY MATHEW,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MANI, KANJIRATHUMKUZHIYIL
HOUSE, OTTUPARA, WADAKKANCHERRY.
AS PER ORDER DATED 09.07.2021 IN I.A.1/2020 IN
WPC17511/2020.
2 FR.ISSAC.K.P.
AGED 72 YEARS
COR-EPISCOPA, VICAR, ST.GEORGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN
CHURCH, CHELAKKARA, CHELAKKARA P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 586.
ADDL.P3 & P4 IMPLEADED
ADDL.PETITIONER No.3
3 FR.JOSEPH MATHEW @ JOSSY MATHEW
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.MANI, KANJIRATHUMKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
OTTUPARA, WADAKKANCHERRY VICAR,
ST.GEORGE'S OXTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH,
CHELEKKARA.
ADDL.P3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09/07/2021
IN I.A.1/2020 IN WPC NO.17511 OF 2020.
WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 2
4 ADDL.PETITIONER No.4.
JOY.K.C., S/O.CHUMMAR,
AGED 55 YEARS
KOOTHUR HOUSE, VENGANALLUR P.O.,
CHELAKKARA TRUSTEE,
ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH,
CHELAKKARA.
ADDL.P4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.07.2021
IN I.A.1/2021 IN WPC NO.17511 OF 2020.
BY ADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SRI.R.GITHESH
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
SMT.HANI P.NAIR
SHRI.ELDHO CHERIAN
SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
THRISSUR, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
CIVIL LINES ROAD, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, KERALA-680 003.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHALAKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN-680 586.
3 REV.FR.THOMAS NEDIYAPALAKKAL,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.PAULOSE, VAZHANI P.O.,
VIRIPAKKA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK,
THRISSUR, PIN-680 5898.
4 C.V.KURIAKOSE,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.VARU, CHAMMANNUR HOUSE,
CHELAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680 586.
5 JOHNSON,
WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 3
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.CHERU, CHEERAN HOUSE,
THONNOOR KARA VILALGE,
THONNOORKARA, THRISSUR, PIN-680 586.
6 JOY,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.ITTOOP, KUNDUKULAM HOUSE,
VENGANELLUR VILLAGE, VENGANELLUR P.O.,
CHELAKKARA, PIN-680 586.
R1 & R2 BY SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
SMT.RASHMI K.M., GOVT.PLEADER
R4 & R6 BY SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE
SRI.K.C.BIJU
SHRI.VISHNU RAJAGOPAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.08.2021, THE COURT ON 13.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 4
T.R.RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.17511 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2021
JUDGMENT
The 1st petitioner claims to be a constituent parish church of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church governed by 1934 Constitution of Malankara Church. The 2nd petitioner is the Vicar of the 1st petitioner church appointed by Exhibit P1 Kalpana on 20.10.1974. There were disputes between the two factions in the Church. The 1st respondent had initiated M.C.No.23 of 1974 and on 19.06.1974 a preliminary order was passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), invoking the jurisdiction under Section 146(1) of the Code, directing attachment and entrustment of the church building and property to the 2nd respondent as Receiver. The 2nd respondent was directed to take charge of the church, keep it closed, locked and sealed. The Patriarch faction in the 1 st petitioner church was A party and the Orthodox faction was the B party in M.C.No.23 of 1974. Possession was taken by the 2 nd WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 5 respondent as per Mahazar prepared on 20.10.1974. However, but both the factions were permitted to conduct religious services on different timings on all Sundays and other important dates of religious importance. Separate time schedules were allowed to both factions for conducting services, annual festivals and so on.
2. O.S.No.217 of 1985 was filed before the Sub Court, Thrissur by some of the parishioners of the 1st petitioner church seeking a decree of declaration that the church is to be governed and administered under the 1934 Constitution of Malankara Church and for other reliefs. The suit was withdrawn and transferred to the 1st Additional District Court, Ernakulam and re- numbered as O.S.No.18 of 1986. By judgment and decree dated 11.10.2010, the suit was dismissed finding that the suit is in respect of administration of a public religious trust and had been instituted without obtaining leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence not maintainable. R.F.A.No.782 of 2010 was filed before this Court. By judgment dated 17.6.2015, this Court agreed with the findings of the District Court and dismissed the appeal. On 30.06.2015, a few of the parishioners of the 1 st WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 6 petitioner church filed O.P.No.335 of 2015 before the District Court, Thrissur under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure for leave to institute a suit in respect of the church. The 2nd petitioner was the 2nd respondent in the above said original petition.
3. On 07.08.2015, the 2nd petitioner was served with an order of even dated, issued by the 1 st respondent, intimating that it has been decided to lift the attachment and hand over possession of the church and its properties to the A party, Patriarch faction. The order purports to have been passed under Section 145(6) and refers to a legal opinion from the District Government Pleader. It is stated that on 08.08.2015, when the 2nd petitioner Vicar and the faithful went to the church and were conducting prayers, they were forcibly removed. Crime No.662 of 2015 was registered and they were arrested and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The 2 nd petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No.1002 of 2015 before this Court challenging the above order. The revision petition was allowed by this Court by Exhibit P2 judgment dated 30.11.2015. This Court considered the nature of the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 7 Code of Criminal Procedure Code with reference to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jhummamal v. State of M.P. reported in [(1988) 4 SCC 452], Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand reported in [(2013) 3 SCC 366] and the decision of this Court in Shameel N.A. and another v. Muhammed Ansari and others reported in [2014(4) KHC 217] and held that the proceedings could culminate only of a finding of the civil court regarding the right of the person entitled to hold possession or the SDM determining the person holding possession on the relevant date or on a finding that breach of peace no longer exists. This Court found that no decision has been arrived at by a civil court and that no enquiry under Section 145(4) had been conducted, for the reason that an order of status quo issued by the civil court was in force. The Court directed the 1 st respondent to complete the enquiry within 3 months. The period was later extended by 4 months.
4. Despite Ext.P2 judgment, no enquiry was conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Meanwhile, O.P.No.335 of 2015 was heard and allowed by order dated 22.03.2016. The original WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 8 petition was converted as a suit and renumbered as O.S.No.5 of 2016 of the District Court, Thrissur. The plaintiffs in the suit filed I.A.No.1663 of 2016, praying for an order of maintenance of status quo, as ordered in M.C.No. 23 of 1974 till the disposal of the suit. On 12.4.2016, the District Court issued Exhibit P3 order, directing to maintain status quo.
5. Since the civil Court was in seisin of the matter, no further proceedings were taken up in M.C.No.23 of 1974. The 2nd petitioner submitted an application before the 1 st respondent seeking stay of the proceedings in M.C.No. 23 of 1974, but the request was rejected by the 1st respondent. The order of the 1st respondent was challenged by the 2nd petitioner by filing Crl. M.C.No.4064 of 2016 before this Court. While so, O.S.No.5 of 2016 was withdrawn and transferred to the 1st Additional District Court, Ernakulam, and renumbered as O.S.No.29 of 2017. By Ext.P5 judgment dated 05.01.2018, this Court disposed of Crl.M.C.No.4064 of 2016 quashing the order dated 22.06.2016 issued by the 1st respondent and directing the proceedings in M.C.No.23 of 1934 to be kept in abeyance till final disposal of WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 9 O.S.No.29 of 2017. This Court however, found that on the issuance of the interim order of status quo, the proceedings in M.C.23/1974 has become infructuous.
6. In O.S.No.29 of 2017, the plaintiffs filed an application for interim injunction as I.A.No.5551 of 2017. By Ext.P4 order dated 12.7.2018 issued by the District Court, the 4 th respondent or any other trustees, vicars and prelates who were not appointed under the 1934 Constitution, were restrained by a temporary injunction from conducting any religious services in the 1st respondent Church or its institutions scheduled to the plaint. There were other directions as well against the respondents. The Court also held that the arrangement for worship or any other matter directed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate will not survive any longer. The defendants 4 to 7 in the suit are respondents 3 to 6 in this writ petition and they are bound by Ext.P4 order.
7. When members of the erstwhile patriarch faction caused obstruction to the conduct of religious services as permitted in Exhibit P4, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.4404 of 2018 WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 10 seeking Police assistance to implement Exhibit P4. The petition was allowed as per Exhibit P6 order dated 09.08.2018. Despite Exhibit P6 order, the 1st respondent took a stand that there is no specific direction in Exhibit P6 to open the church for conduct of religious services, and refused to open the church. The plaintiffs then filed I.A.No.2719 of 2018 seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 herein to open the 1st petitioner church and its properties scheduled to the plaint for conduct of religious worships as and when a request is made to them or in the alternate to direct the 1st respondent to hand over the keys of the church and its properties to the 2nd petitioner to facilitate the smooth conduct of the religious services till the disposal of the suit. By Exhibit P7 order dated 21.08.2018, the application was allowed by the District Court. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to open the church on the request of the 2nd petitioner for conduct of religious services and after the conclusion of the services the key was to be handed over to the 2nd respondent, who was to keep the same till a request is made again. Pursuant to the above order, the religious services are being conducted smoothly, it is submitted. WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 11 It is clear from the proceedings that have taken place that the respondents 1 and 2 were acting as per the directions issued by the competent civil court, and were no longer acting under the power available under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. By Exhibit P8 judgment dated 22.10.2019, the 1st Additional District Court decreed the suit O.S.No.29 of 2017. The decretal portion of the judgment reads thus;
"1. It is declared that the 1st defendant church is liable to be administered in accordance with the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.
2. It is also declared that only parishioners who comply with Article 7 and confess before the D2 Vicar or his successors appointed by the Diocesan Metropolitan of Kunnamkulam Diocese under the 1934 Constitution are entitled to participate in the parish assembly of D1 Church
3. Taking of accounts of D1 Church and its institutions, more particularly described in the plaint schedule, for the period during which D4 and D5 were in management, is ordered. A statement of these accounts shall be produced by D4 and D5 within a period of two weeks from today. On such statement of accounts being produced the same shall be caused to WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 12 be audited by a competent hand which is left to the stage of final decree.
4. D4 to D7, their men and agents are restrained by a perpetual injunction from causing any obstruction to D3 or his successors appointed under 1934 Constitution by the Diocesan Metropolitan of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church at Kunnamkulam from discharging his functions and duties as vicar or D1 Church, cemetery and kurishupallies described in the plaint schedule, from bringing any prelates/vicars/priests not appointed under 1934 Constitution for conducting religious services in the church, cemetery and kurishupallies described in the plaint schedule, and from taking income from plaint A to I schedule properties
5. D4 to D7 shall pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiffs. The costs necessary for audit of accounts and allied matters will be decided at the stage of final decree.
6. The plaintiffs are permitted to apply for passing a final decree for getting the accounts produced and audited by a competent person.
7. The suit is adjourned sine die for passing final decree in respect of the direction for rendition of accounts."
9. The defendants 4 to 7 are respondents 3 to 6 in this writ petition and they are persons bound by Ext.P8. After the decree the 2nd petitioner submitted Ext.P9 statement dated WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 13 30.10.2019 in M.C.No.23 of 1974, requesting the 1 st respondent to hand over the keys of the 1 st petitioner church and the offertory boxes to the 2nd petitioner and to transfer the amounts kept in the Treasury accounts to the bank accounts of the 1 st petitioner church with Canara Bank, Chelakkara Branch, having Account number 0801101024883. When no action was forthcoming, the 2nd petitioner submitted Ext.P10 reminder on 17.02.2020 to the 1st respondent, to take immediate action on Exhibit P9. It is thereafter that this writ petition has been filed, praying for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to hand over the keys of the 1st petitioner church and the offertory boxes and all other institutions in Exhibit P8 decree to the 2 nd petitioner and to transfer the amount belonging to the 1 st petitioner church kept in Treasury accounts, to the bank accounts of the 1 st petitioner church with Canara Bank, Chelakkara Branch, having account No. 0801101024883 and to grant any other further or consequential reliefs. The petitioners have filed I.A.No. 1 of 2020 in the writ petition seeking to produce Ext.P11 which is the true copy of the Kalpana No.KKM 33/2020 dated 01.08.2020, which would show WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 14 that the 3rd petitioner is the present Vicar of the Church.
10. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 4 and 6. The above the respondents contended that the name of the church is not correctly shown in the writ petition, that the actual name is St.George Jacobite Syrian Church, Chelakkara, that the church is not properly represented in the writ petition, that the 2nd petitioner who claims to be representing the church has no right or authority to represent the 1 st petitioner church and that the 2nd petitioner is not properly appointed by a properly appointed Diocesan Metropolitan. Another contention is that there is no evidence to show that the Church under dispute is a constituent Church of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian church and that even though such an issue had been raised before the District Court, the same was not considered in Exhibit P8 judgment. The next contention is that O.S.No.29 of 2017 was filed praying for a decree directing the 3 rd respondent to convene the Parish assembly of the plaintiff Church and to conduct election to the trustees, managing committee members and other office bearers in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. It is WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 15 stated that even though the suit was decreed on 22.10.2019, no election was conducted in the St.George Jacobite Syrian Church in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. The contention is that the Vicar can be a custodian of the church and its institution only with lay trustees and since no trustee has been elected it would not be proper to hand over the custody of the church, its movable and immovable properties to the 2nd petitioner alone. The petitioner had filed I.A.1 of 2021 seeking to implead the 4 th petitioner in the application as additional 4 th petitioner in the writ petition, which was allowed on 09.07.2021. It is stated in the affidavit in support of the application that the 4 th petitioner was elected as the Trustee of the 1 st petitioner Church in the Annual General Body Meeting of the Church held on 05.05.2019. But the election is disputed by the contesting respondents. It was further contended that the 2nd petitioner is not a person who is recognised by the Patriarch of Antioch as the Supreme Head of the church, which is a requirement under the 1934 Constitution. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in K.S.Varghese & Ors.v. St.Peter's & St.Paul's Syrian WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 16 Orthodox Church & Ors. reported in [(2017)15 SCC 333] to submit that the Supreme Court has held that the 1934 Constitution cannot be considered to be opposed to the concept of spiritual supremacy of Patriarch of Antioch. The respondents also contended that the present Catholicos has been consecrated without inviting the Patriarch of Antioch and therefore is not a properly ordained Catholicos and is not entitled to perform the functions of the Catholicos, unless the consecration is ratified by the Patriarch of Antioch, in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court.
11. Sri S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners contended that under Section 145, action has to be co-terminus with the decree in the civil suit and since the civil suit has ended in favour of the 2 nd petitioner, the possession of the church and its properties has to be handed over to the 2 nd petitioner. Reliance is placed on paragraph 16 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhinka and others v. Charan Singh [AIR 1959 SC 960] and paragraph 293 and 295 of the decision of the Supreme Court in M.Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 17 Temple Case) v. Mahant Suresh Das and others [(2020) 1 SCC 1].
12. The State Attorney appearing on behalf of the official respondents submitted that Exhibit P8 is only a preliminary decree and the final decree is yet to be pronounced, and hence, going by the dictum laid down in Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad and others reported in [(2007) 2 SCC 355], the decree cannot be executed. It is submitted that even before the civil Court, the preliminary decree cannot be executed. Another contention is that Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be dependent on the preliminary decree issued by the civil Court.
13. Sri Mathew Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 4 and 6 reiterated the contentions in the counter affidavit and submitted that a writ petition cannot be maintained by the petitioners and if at all there is any right, it can only be to approach the civil court for execution of the decree. The order by which the 2nd respondent was put in possession in 1974, is not available with any of the parties. WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 18
14. I have considered the contentions put forward by the counsel on either side. It is well settled that Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal procedure are intended merely to maintain law and order and to prevent a breach of peace, by maintaining one or other of the parties to the dispute in possession or by retaining the possession with a Receiver, who may be appointed, until the right is determined by a civil court. After considering the case laws on the issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ram Janmabhumi case (supra) held that the object is to take the subject of dispute out of the hands of the disputants, allowing the custodian to protect the same, until one of the parties has established their right (if any) to possession in a civil court. It was held that the jurisdiction and power of the civil court cannot in any manner be hampered. On the question whether the proceedings under Section 145 can be continued when the civil court is in seisin of the issue, the Apex Court after referring to the decisions in Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey, reported in [(2000) 4 SCC 440] and Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. reported in [(1985) WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 19 1 SCC 427], held that where a suit is instituted for possession or for declaration of title before a competent civil court, the proceedings under Section 145 should not continue. In Bhinka (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the life of the order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is co- terminus with the passing of a decree by a civil court and the moment a civil court makes an order of eviction, it displaces the order of the criminal court. There can be no different view regarding the above propositions of law. In the case on hand, initially, the possession was taken over by the 2 nd respondent in the capacity of Receiver, in terms of the order passed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. However, by Ext.P3 order, the competent civil court had passed an order of status quo, retaining the possession with the Receiver. That is to say, the order of the civil court had taken the place of the order of the 1st respondent. This order was followed by Ext.P4 order whereby the civil court by an order of injunction restrained the 4th respondent and others from conducting religious services and from causing any obstruction to the 3rd respondent before the civil court from conducting religious WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 20 services in the church. The court also held that the directions issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate will not survive any longer. The above order in effect affirmed the fact that the possession of the 2nd respondent is on the basis of orders of the civil court. In this context, it can be seen from Ext.P5 order that this Court had held that the proceedings in M.C.No.23 of 1974 has become infructuous, but kept the proceedings in abeyance till final disposal of the suit. The above direction was apparently for the reason that the 2nd respondent was in possession as Receiver, as per orders of the civil court. By the order Ext.P6 dated 09.8.2018, the District Court observed that if the Sub Divisional Magistrate required further clarification after the earlier order issued by the Court, it would be contemptuous, and issued specific directions to the 1st and 2nd respondents regarding opening of the church and its properties for compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P4 order. It is thereafter that by Ext.P8, the court decreed the suit.
15. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the proceedings under Section 145 can no longer WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 21 continue after Ext.P8 decree. The possession of the property, which is with the 2nd respondent on the basis of orders issued by the competent civil court and is custodia legis, necessarily has to be restored to the successful party. The 2 nd respondent has absolutely no right to hold on to the possession after the civil court has declared the rights of the parties and held that respondents 3 to 6 and their men and agents are restrained from causing any obstruction to the 2nd petitioner or his successors appointed under the 1934 Constitution, who are found to be entitled to discharge functions and duties as vicar of the Church, cemetery and kurishupallies described in the plaint.
16. The contention of the counsel for respondents 4 and 6 cannot be accepted since in Ext.P8 judgment, it has been specifically held that the said respondents have no right to cause obstruction or to conduct religious services in the church through any prelates/vicars/priests not appointed under 1934 Constitution. Their option is only to challenge Ext.P8 judgment, if so advised.
17. The contention of the State Attorney also cannot be WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 22 countenanced. It can be seen from the orders issued by the civil court that the orders issued by the 1st respondent in exercise of power under Section 145 are no longer in force and it is the order of the civil court that was in force. This court had even held that the proceedings in M.C.No.23 of 1974 has become infructuous. The mere fact that the proceedings were directed to be kept in abeyance does not in any manner mean that the proceedings are permitted to continue despite the judgment of the civil court. Regarding the contention of the State Attorney on the basis of the dictum in Hasham Abbas (supra), that execution of the preliminary decree is not maintainable even before the civil court, I am of the opinion that this is not a case of execution of a decree. The prayer of the petitioners is only for restoration of possession of the property, which is in custodia legis, to the successful party. The 2nd respondent is not a party interested in the litigation and he is not in possession on behalf of any of the parties. His possession is that of the Court. It is hence for the Court to decide on the possession. The contention of the counsel for respondents 4 to 6 that the petitioners should approach the WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 23 execution court is also without any basis. Firstly, it is well settled that a declaratory decree is not executable. (See the decisions in Karunakaran & Ors. v. Janaki Amma & ors reported in [1987 (2) KLT 1010], Somavalli & Ors v. Prasanna Kumar & Ors reported in [2015 (3) KLT 391] and Ellodimalayil Pocken v. Koyiloth Moosa & Ors. reported in [2019 (2) KLT 1144]). Secondly, as already stated, the petitioners are not seeking execution of a decree, but only seeking a direction to the Receiver to put them in possession in the light of Ext.P8 judgment.
18. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to hand over the keys of the 1 st petitioner Church and the offertory boxes and all other institutions in Exhibit P8 decree to the 3 rd petitioner (successor of 2nd petitioner) and to transfer the amount belonging to the 1 st petitioner church kept in Treasury accounts, to the bank accounts of the 1st petitioner church with Canara Bank, Chelakkara Branch, having account No. 0801101024883, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 24 clear that the directions issued in this judgment are not to be understood as an approval of any election that is said to have been conducted on 05.05.2019 to the Trustees of the 1 st petitioner Church. The question regarding validity of the said election, if any, is left open.
The parties will bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI JUDGE dsn WP(C) NO. 17511 OF 2020 25 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17511/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF KALPANA NO.KKM 33/2014 DATED 11.06.2014.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.11.2015 IN CRL.RP NO.1002 OF 2015 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO.1663 OF 2016 IN OS NO.5 OF 2016 OF IVTH ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.07.2017 IN IA NO.5551 OF 2017 IN OS NO.29 OF 2017 OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05.01.2018 IN CRL.MC NO.4064 OF 2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 09.08.2018 IN IA NO,.4404 OF 2018 IN OS NO.29 OF 2017 OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.08.2018 IN IA NO.2719 OF 2018 IN OS NO.29 OF 2017 OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2019 IN OS NO.29 OF 2017 OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 30.10.2019 IN MC NO.23 OF 1974 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT, SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF REMINDER DATED 17.02.2020 IN MC NO.23 OF 1974 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT, SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE , THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF KALPANA NO.KKM 33/2020 DATED 1/8/2020 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF KALPANA NO.KKM 45/2019 DATED 1/6/2019