Madras High Court
Kanyakumari C.S.I. Trust Association vs Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis on 6 June, 2022
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 S.A.(MD)No.212 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 28.04.2022
Pronounced on : 06.06.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.212 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011
1.Kanyakumari C.S.I. Trust Association,
Represented by
(a) The Bishop,
Kanyakumari C.S.I. Diocese,
Bishop House, Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
(b) The Treasurer,
Kanyakumari C.S.I. Diocese,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
2.John Stalin,
Pastor,
C.S.I. Church,
Murambuvila,
Kanyakumari District. ... Appellants /Appellants
Defendants 1 & 2
(Cause title of the appellants is amended vide Court
order dated 06.10.2021 made in C.M.P.(MD)No.7121
of 2021 in S.A.(MD)No.212 of 2011 by GRSJ)
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 S.A.(MD)No.212 of 2011
1.Rasalam
2.Chellappan
3.Ponnupillai
4.Thapasimuthu
5.Rev.Kenoz Solomon ... Respondents / Respondents 1 to 5 /
Respondents 1 to 5
6.Wilson
7.Johnson
8.Sobathi ... Respondents / Respondents 6 to 8 /
Defendants 3 to 5
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.121 of 2004 dated 13.09.2010 on
the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, confirming the
judgment and decree pased in O.S.No.55 of 1997 dated 07.01.2004 on
the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair
For R3 to R5 : Mr.S.Ramesh
For Mr.V.Raghavachari
JUDGMENT
The contesting defendants in O.S.No.55 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court Court, Kuzhithurai are the appellants in this second appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 S.A.(MD)No.212 of 2011
2.The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-
The plaintiffs are members of London Mission Congregation Church, Murampuvlai in Vellancode Village. The land was purchased for Murampuvilai London Mission Congregation Church and the church itself was constructed with the funds given by Travancore Church Council. The first defendant was appointed as pastor of the church in the year 1980. The relationship between the first defendant and the church management came under strain and he was directed to leave church premises. The first defendant unauthorizedly proposed to conduct the election. He claimed to have taken over the management also. He also executed a document gifting the suit properties in favour of the Church of South Indian Trust Association/second defendant. Seeking to nullify the said gift deed and for evicting the first defendant from the suit premises and for other reliefs, the suit was instituted.
3.The first defendant filed written statement controverting the plaint averments. He contended that the plaint church and congregation being an independent church decided to merge with CSI and also https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 S.A.(MD)No.212 of 2011 transferred the properties to CSITA. This was accepted by CSI and suit church is presently administered by C.S.I.
4.Based on the divergent pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:-
“1.Whether L.M. Congregational Church Murampuvilai has ownership over the plaint schedule property?
2.Is the impugned gift deed dated 28.05.1997 relied on by the second defendant valid and competent?
3.Are the defendants competent to deny the rights of the plaintiffs over the suit property?
4.Is the merger pleaded by the defendant tenable?
5.Are the contention of the defendant to barred by estoppel?
6.Is the suit non maintainable?
7.Relief and cost?”
5.On the side of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined and Exs.A1 to A30 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B35 were marked. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 S.A.(MD)No.212 of 2011 After consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 07.01.2004 partly decreed the suit holding that the gift deed dated 28.05.1997 is null and void and also directed the contesting defendants to handover possession of the suit properties to the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, the contesting defendants filed A.S.No.121 of 2004 before the District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. By the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.09.2010, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the trial Court. Challenging the same, this second appeal came to be filed.
6.The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-
“1.When the title of the plaintiffs is denied by the defendants whether the suit for recovery of possession without a prayer for declaration of title is maintainable in law?
2.When all the members of LMS decided to merge in CSI and passed a resolution to convey the church building and the site to CSI, whether the dissident group formed after the conveyance could maintain a suit for recovery of possession of the suit property?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 S.A.(MD)No.212 of 2011
3.Whether the plaintiffs are competent to question the merger of plaint church and its members with CSI?
7.The learned counsel for the appellants reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and called upon this Court to answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellants and set aside the impugned judgment and decree and dismiss the suit in toto. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the impugned judgment and decree do not call for any interference.
8.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the evidence on record. There cannot be any dispute that the suit properties were purchased for an on behalf of London Mission Congregational Church. It has been categorically found by the Courts below that the suit church has to follow the constitution of Travancore Church Council. The first defendant namely, Rev.M.Thankamony was only a pastor who was obliged to look after the activities and affairs of the suit church. When he attempted to hold an election, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.439 of 1994 and also obtained an injunction order against the first defendant. The injunction was made absolute on 08.09.1994. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 S.A.(MD)No.212 of 2011 Questioning the same, the first defendant filed a civil miscellaneous appeal. It was also dismissed on 21.07.1995. Therefore, any body formed in defiance and violation of an injunction order cannot be recognized. On the strength of the power said to have been given in the general body election of the suit church which itself was held in violation of the injunction order, the first defendant executed Ex.A13/gift deed in favour of the second defendant. The first defendant had no authority in law to do so. The Courts below after an exhaustive analysis of the evidence on record have concurrently rendered a finding that the first defendant had illegally acted by gifting the suit properties in favour of the second defendant. When the suit church is governed by a particular constitution, its property could be dealt only thereunder and not dehors the same. What the first defendant had done was nothing but a plain hijacking. The properties of the suit church are more in the nature of a trust. They could have been dealt with only in the manner known to law. An illegal general body election was held and in such an election, a fraudulent resolution was passed and based on the same, a gift deed was executed. In order to retrieve the suit properties and to secure eviction of the first defendant and others, a representative suit was filed. It has been found by the Courts below that Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC was followed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8 S.A.(MD)No.212 of 2011 The approach adopted by the Court is well founded and no case has been made out for interference.
9.It is true that if the title of the plaintiffs is under cloud, there must be a prayer for declaration. But then, a declarative relief need not be sought whenever a title is under challenge. The defendants must place materials which could cast real doubt on the plaintiffs' title. In this case, it is obvious that the properties were purchased only in the name of the suit church. The documents marked by the plaintiffs and the defendants are self explanatory. Therefore, the plaintiffs were not obliged to seek the relief of declaration. The suit impeaching the gift deed and seeking recovery of possession is very much maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title. The first substantial question of law is answered against the appellants.
10.The second substantial question of law has been framed on the assumption that the members of the suit church have passed a resolution to convey the church building to CSI. It has been already found as a matter of fact that the very election wherein the resolution was passed was held in defiance of an injunction order. That apart, the suit https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 S.A.(MD)No.212 of 2011 properties bear the character of trust. It is not open to a group of people to unilaterally take a decision regarding their alienation. The Courts below have held that the suit church was governed by the constitution of Travancore Church Council. Hence, the properties can be dealt with only in the manner set out therein and not otherwise. Any member of the London Mission Congregation Church can question an illegal alienation of the church properties. The plaintiffs admittedly are members of London Mission Congregation Church and they were entitled to challenge the gift effected by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant. The second and third substantial questions of law are answered against the appellants. I find no any merit in this second appeal and the same stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10 S.A.(MD)No.212 of 2011 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
ias To:
1.The District Court, Kanyakumari At Nagercoil.
2.The Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai.
3.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.S.A.(MD)No.212 of 2011
06.06.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis