Kerala High Court
Rev.Joy Mathew vs Rev.George Eapen on 17 February, 2026
2026:KER:15849
RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 28TH MAGHA, 1947
RSA NO. 1246 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.08.2015 IN AS
NO.68 OF 2015 OF DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA ARISING OUT
OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.03.2015 IN OS NO.290 OF
2008 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 ST.THOMAS EVANGELICAL CHURCH OF INDIA
MANJADI.P.O, THIRUVALLA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESBYTE- REV. JOY MATHEW, S/O LATE MATHEW,
VELIMKODIYATTU HOUSE, AYROOR SOUTH.P.O,RANNY
TALUK
2 M.J. MATHEW
S/O LATE JOSEPH, MUDANAKUZHIYIL BOB-JOSEPH
VILLA, PUTHUSSERRY PO, VIA THIRUVALLA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 EVANGELICAL FELLOWSHIP MISSIONS OF INDIA
SAID TO BE FUNCTIONING AT ST. THOMAS EVANGELICAL
CHURCH, CHEMBUR OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM.P.O, PIN-695
125, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., REPRESENTED BY
REV. GEORGE EAPEN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O
P.E.EAPEN,KADIYAMKUNNIL HOUSE, AYROOR NORTH.P.O,
2026:KER:15849
RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015
2
AYROOR VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK.
2 T. SUNIL
SUNIL BHAVAN, KARIMPUMANNADI, AGED 42 YEARS,
VELLARADA,KUDAPPANAMOOD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695 505.
*3 RUBY VIDYAVATHI (DELETED)
SEVINEE MANDIRAM, MYLACHEL-
OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM.PO,PIN-695 125,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
4 K. REJI, AGED 49 YEARS,
PUTHENVEEDU, KALAUAPURAM, KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM
DISTRICT- 691 560
*5 K.P. ANTONY, (DELETED), AGED 52 YEARS,
A.J. VILLA, NULLIYOODU, KUDAPPANAMOODU PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 505.
*6 K.V. LAWARNCE,(DELETED)
KUNNIL VEEDU, PANTHA. PO,
AMBOORI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
*7 SUMESH. M, (DELETED), AGED 37 YEARS,
KALAYILMELEPLUTHENVEEDU, CHEMBUR,
OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM. PO, PIN-695 125,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
*8 BINU MON.S, (DELETED), AGED 37 YEARS,
KALAYILMELEPLUTHENVEEDU, CHEMBUR
OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM. PO, PIN-695 125.
9 JOLLY MOL. K, AGED 47 YEARS,
SEVINCE MANDIRAM MYLANCHEL, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM
PO, PIN-695 125,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
*10 N.S. VARGHESE, (DELETED), AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE SAMUEL, NAMBOORIYATHU PULLAMPALLIL
HOUSE, NELLICKKAMON PO, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNI
TALUK, PIN - 689674.
*(RESPONDENTS 3,5 TO 8 AND 10 ARE DELETED FROM
THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANTS AS
PER THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2016 IN IA.721/2016.)
2026:KER:15849
RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015
3
11 REV. K.M. ABRAHAM, AGED 77 YEARS,
S/O LATE MATHAI, KULANGARA HOUSE, MULAVANA PO,
KUNDRA, PIN - 691 503.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ARUN V.G. (K/795/2004) FOR R1 & R9
SMT.ALEXY AUGUSTINE FOR R11
SMT.V.JAYA RAGI FOR R1 & R9
SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN FOR R1 & R9
SHRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL)FOR R1 & R9
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 17.02.2026, ALONG WITH RSA.1242/2015 & 1245/2015, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:15849
RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 28TH MAGHA, 1947
RSA NO. 1242 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.08.2015 IN AS
NO.67 OF 2015 OF DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA ARISING OUT
OF THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.03.2015 IN OS NO.65 OF
2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
ST. THOMAS EVANGELICAL FELLOWSHIP OF INDIA
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE T.C ACT 12-OF
1955 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY - REV.JOY MATHEW,
S/O.LATE MATHEW, VELIMKODIYATHU HOUSE, AYROOR
SOUTH P.O., RANNY TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 SHIBU D.,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.C.DASSAYYAN, THE CHIEF EDITOR, FELLOWSHIP
BEACON, E.F.M.OFFICE, MYLACHAL,
OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAMPIN
- 695 125.
2 REV.K.M.ABRAHAM
AGED 79 YEARS
2026:KER:15849
RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015
5
S/O.LATE MATHAI, KULANGARA HOUSE, MULAVANA
P.O.KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN - 691 503.
3 REV.GEORGE EAPEN
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.EAPEN, KADIYANKUNNIL HOUSE, KOTTATHUR P.O.,
AYROOR, RANNY TALUK, PRESENTLY HAVING ADDRESS AT
E.F.M - OFFICE MYLACHAL,
OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 125.
4 T.SUNIL
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.THANKAPPAN, SUNIL BHAVAN,
KARIMBUMANNADIVELLARADA, KUDAPPANAMOODU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 505.
BY ADVS.
SMT.ALEXY AUGUSTINE FOR R2
SHRI.ARUN V.G. (K/795/2004)FOR R3
SMT.V.JAYA RAGI FOR R3
SHRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL) FOR R3
SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN FOR R3
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 17.02.2026, ALONG WITH RSA.1246/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:15849
RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015
6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 28TH MAGHA, 1947
RSA NO. 1245 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.8.2015 IN AS
NO.69 OF 2015 OF DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA ARISING OUT
OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.3.2015 IN OS NO.19 OF
2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 REV.JOY MATHEW
S/O LATE MATHEW, VELIMKODIYATHU HOUSE, AYROOR
SOUTH.P.O, RANNY TALUK
2 M.J. MATHEW
S/O LATE JOSEPH, MUDANAKUZHIYIL, BOB JOSEPH
VILLA, PUTHUSSERRY.P.O, VIA THIRUVALLA
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 REV.GEORGE EAPEN, AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O EAPEN, KADIYANKUNNIL HOUSE,
KOTTATHUR.P.O,AYROOR, RANNY TALUK-689 614
2 REV. K.M. ABRAHAM
S/O LATE MATHAI, KULANGARA HOUSE, MULANANA PO,
KUNDRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 503.
2026:KER:15849
RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015
7
3 K. REJI
S/O KUJUKUNJU, PUTHENVEETTIL, KALAYAPURAM PO,
KOTTARAKKARA-691 560
4 N.S. VARGHESE (DELETED)
S/O LATE SAMUEL, NAMBOORIYATHUPULLAMPALLIL
HOUSE, NELLIKKAMON P.O, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY
TALUK, PIN - 689 674.
(THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY
ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANTS AS PER THE
ORDER DATED 22.9.2016 IN IA NO.722/2016)
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ARUN V.G. (K/795/2004)FOR R1
SMT.ALEXY AUGUSTINE FOR R2
SMT.V.JAYA RAGI FOR R1
SHRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL) FOR R1
SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN FOR R1
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 17.02.2026, ALONG WITH RSA.1246/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:15849
RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015
8
EASWARAN S., J.
------------------------------------
RSA Nos.1246, 1245 and 1242 of 2015
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs are the appellants herein. The concurrent findings of the trial court in three suits, OS Nos.19/2008, 290/2008 and 65/2009 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Ranny, and the first appellate court are questioned in the present second appeals. OS Nos.19/2008 and 65/2009 are for permanent prohibitory injunction whereas OS No.290/2008 is for a declaration. The facts leading to the dismissal of OS No.290/2008 will be dealt with by this Court in this judgment, and once the issues raised therein are answered, the other suits become inconsequential.
2. The 1st plaintiff in OS No.290/2008 is the Episcopal Church formed in the year 1961 with a written constitution, and the 2nd plaintiff is one of its laity. The 1st defendant was the presbyter and defendants 2 to 10 were the laity and the 11th defendant is a retired clergy of St.Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship). Defendants 1 to 10 formed a trust in the name and style Evangelical 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 9 Fellowship Missions of India on 21.02.2008 as per trust deed No.20/2008 of the Perumkadavila Sub Registry Office. St.Thomas Evangelical Church of India is an episcopal church which was formed in the year 1961, and during the 1960s, there arose a difference of opinion in the 1st plaintiff church, and one of the factions formed a society in the year 1971 in the name and style of St.Thomas Evangelical Fellowship of India. In that connection, several suits were filed by the rival factions and those suits were settled in the year 2000 in SA No.851/1990 before this Court and as per the terms of the compromise, the parishes associated with St. Thomas Evangelical Fellowship of India were allowed to function as St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship) and suitable constitutional changes were made. In the year 2004, certain negotiations were made with an attempt to merge both the churches, and the supreme authority decided for merger. But the decision was not placed before the then Bishop, and hence it was not materialised. On 16.03.2007, the Sabha Council of St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India met and appointed a subcommittee to explore the possibilities of a merger and on 22.05.2007, the Sabha Council of St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship) also in turn appointed a subcommittee. After 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 10 several deliberations, the joint committee prepared a draft proposal for the amalgamation of the two churches. On 29.10.2007, the Sabha Secretary of St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship) issued a notice for convening the meeting of the Pradhinidhi Sabha for adopting the Sabha Council's decision and various clauses formulated for merger. The Pradhinidhi Sabha again met on 30.11.2007 and decided to merge with St.Thomas Evangelical Church of India and the decision was approved by the then Bishop, who issued a circular dated 1.12.2007 to all the parishes under the St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship). Another special circular dated 07.12.2007 signed by the three Bishops of the two churches was caused to be circulated to be read in all parishes, calling upon the laity to participate in the merger meeting, which was to be held on 25.12.2007. Later, the meeting was held on 25.12.2007, and a copy of the merger declaration was published in the Malayala Manorama Daily on 24.12.2007. After the merger declaration, both the churches are functioning as a single church named as St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India. The defendants 2 to 9 defied the merger along with Rev.George Eapen, and they formed a trust in the name and style Evangelical Fellowship Missions of India with headoffice at 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 11 St.Thomas Evangelical Church of India, Chembur, in the year 2008. According to the plaintiffs, the formation of the trust and the intention thereby to establish different churches under the trust will not bind the 1st plaintiff church and therefore the suit is instituted for a declaration that the trust deed No.20/2008 is not binding upon them and for a consequential injunction restraining the first defendant in a representative capacity and defendants 2 to 11 in their individual capacity from trespassing into the plaint items, from causing any obstruction to the spiritual functions and other functions of the 1st plaintiff church. The defendants entered appearance and resisted the suit and contended that the parishes and institutions scheduled in the plaint, except the fourth one, absolutely belong to St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship) and that the plaintiffs have no manner of right over those parishes and institutions or its properties. It was further contended that the Bishop of St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship) had issued circular No.4 dated 08.03.2008 to all parishes, intimating the decision of the Prathinidhi Sabha to stop all negotiations with regard to merger. It was further contended that the so-called merger is without any authority and therefore not binding on St. Thomas Evangelical 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 12 Church of India (Fellowship) and on its members and properties. Thus, it is contended that the plaintiffs have no right to claim administration of the churches belonging to St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship), which was exclusively set apart as B schedule to the compromise decree before this Court. Before the trial court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A19 documents were marked and PW1 and PW2 were examined; and on behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B14 documents were marked and DW1 was examined.
3. OS No.19/2008 was instituted for the purpose of seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction stating that no minority group has right to revive the merged St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship) for the obvious reasons that the decision for merger was taken as per the provisions of the Constitution and in accordance with the procedure. OS No. 65/2009 was instituted by the society seeking to restrain the defendants from proceeding to publish certain spiritual articles in the name of St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship).
4. OS No.19/2008 was taken as the lead case by the trial court. The trial court framed issues in the three suits, separately. It is 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 13 necessary to extract the issues framed in the three suits, because it will have a bearing on the ultimate decision to be taken by this Court and it is felt expedient to do so.
Issues framed in OS No.290/2008
1. Is the suit not maintainable?
2. Is the trust deed No.20/2008 of the Perumkadavila SRO is liable to be declared as not binding on the plaintiff or any of the churches under 1st plaintiff as prayed for?
3. Is the relief of injunction as sought for by the plaintiffs is allowable?
4. Reliefs and costs?
Issues framed in OS No.19/2008
1. Are the plaintiffs entitled for the decree of prohibitory injunction as prayed for?
2. Reliefs and costs?
Issues framed in OS No.69/2009
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants as prayed for?
2. Reliefs and costs?
5. The trial court went on the assumption that the essential dispute raised in the suit is with regard to the validity of the merger 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 14 of St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India with that of St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship). On appreciation of evidence, it was concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the decision for merger was based on a majority decision and thereby held that the merger was not proved. Consequent to the said finding, the declaration sought for was declined, as a result of which the claim for injunction was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs in the respective suits preferred appeals as AS Nos.68, 69 and 67 of 2015 before the District Court, Pathanamthitta. The first appellate court on the reappreciation of the evidence found that the findings of the trial court must be sustained, and accordingly, all the three appeals were dismissed and hence, the present second appeals.
6. On 25.11.2015, this Court admitted the appeals on the substantial questions of law framed in the memorandum of appeals, which read as under:
Substantial questions of law framed in RSA No.1246/2015 "i) Has not the trial court went wrong in holding that the supreme body of a church, governed by constitution, has no authority to take a decision regarding merger especially when there is no prohibition under the constitution?
2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 15
ii) Has not the courts below erred in dismissing the suit without considering the implications of merger?
iii) Has not the lower appellate court went wrong in holding that the suit is hit by Section 92 CPC especially when no relief under Section 92 is claimed in the suit?
iv) Has not the Learned Judge went wrong in not considering Exhibit A9 Trust Deed especially when a new church is formed by the defendants in the name Evangelical Fellowship Missions of India.
v) Has not the court below went wrong in considering the effect of merger when a new church was formed by the defendants by a Trust deed executed by them."
Substantial questions of law framed in RSA No.1245/2015
i) Has not the trial court went wrong in holding that the supreme body of a church, governed by constitution, has no authority to take a decision regarding merger especially when there is no prohibition under the constitution?
ii) Has not the courts below erred in dismissing the suit without considering the implications of merger?
iii) Has not the lower appellate court went wrong in holding that the suit is hit by Section 92 CPC especially when no relief under Section 92 is claimed in the suit?"
2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 16 Substantial questions of law framed in RSA No.1242/2015
i) Has not the trial court went wrong in holding that the supreme body of a church, governed by constitution, has no authority to take a decision regarding merger especially when there is no prohibition under the constitution?
ii) Has not the courts below erred in dismissing the suit without considering the implications of merger?
iii) Has not the lower appellate court went wrong in holding that the suit is hit by Section 92 CPC especially when no relief under Section 92 is claimed in the suit?
iv) Has not the court below went wrong in dismissing the suit especially when the defendants admit that they have no registration and licence to publish a magazine?
7. Heard Sri.George Cherian, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri.Arun V.G. assisted by Sri.Neeraj Narayan, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in RSA Nos.1246/2015 and 1245/2015 and for the 3rd respondent in RSA No.1242/2015.
8. Sri.George Cherian, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the findings rendered by the courts 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 17 below are per se unsustainable, inasmuch as the courts below misdirected itself to the entire issues. The trial court assumed that the real controversy involved in the suit is with regard to the merger. But, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the issue regarding the validity of the merger was not at all framed in the suit and therefore any decision rendered without framing as an issue cannot be sustained. The learned Senior Counsel, referring to Ext.A9 trust deed, further asserted that defendants 2 to 11, having formed a splinter group, had decided to establish a trust in Neyyattinkara and one of the objectives of the trust was to establish a church. The conduct of the defendants forming a separate trust and establishing a separate church would certainly lead to an inference that they do not want to continue under St.Thomas Evangelical Church of India. Though the plaintiffs had no issues regarding the defendants forming a trust and establishing a church, in the event of such an establishment, any Priest ordained by them shall not interfere with the religious activities or the administration of the 1st plaintiff church. It is further contended that so long as they remain as the parishioners of the 1st plaintiff church, they cannot question the merger and form an independent faction to establish a church. Lastly, it is further pointed out that, the 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 18 defendants if aggrieved by the merger of St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India and the St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship), ought to have taken appropriate measures to question the same. In the absence of any counterclaim in the suit, the trial court failed to consider the scope of the suit and went on a wrong tangent altogether. He further submitted that as far as the relief in OS No.65/2009 is concerned, the relief has become infructuous because the plaintiff therein had ultimately stopped the publications.
9. Per contra, Sri.Arun V.G., the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in RSA Nos.1246/2015 and 1245/2015 and for the 3rd respondent in RSA No.1242/2015 countered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and submitted that the framework of the suit itself is misplaced. The essence of the dispute in OS No.290/2008 is as to whether there was a merger between St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India and St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship). Therefore, unless and until the said merger is established beyond any doubt, the plaintiffs cannot succeed. It is further contended that insofar as the churches allotted to the Fellowship group are concerned, the same is clearly delineated in Schedule B to the compromise decree before this Court, and 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 19 therefore, if any variation of the compromise decree is required, the parties should necessarily approach this Court for the modification. Referring to the testimony of PW1, it is pointed out that the creation of the documents relating to the merger was fraudulent and that, if as contended by the plaintiffs, there was a majority decision, nothing prevented them from producing the documents before the court. In the absence of the same, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have proved the merger in its entirety. It is further pointed out that non- framing of the issue is not fatal to the case because both the plaintiffs and defendants participated in the trial of the suit fully knowing the real controversies, and therefore it cannot be said that the plaintiffs are prejudiced because of the consideration of a non-framed issue in the suit by the trial court. In support of his contentions, relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs and Others [(2008) 4 SCC 594] and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Another v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others [1954 KHC 111 : AIR 1954 SC 526] and Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 373].
2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 20
10. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the bar, perused the judgments rendered by the courts below and the records of the case.
11. It is indisputable in the present case that the trial court did not frame any issues in OS No. 290/2008 as regards the validity of the merger. For the sake of repetition, the issues framed in OS No. 290/2018 are extracted hereunder:
Issues framed in OS No.290/2008
1. Is the suit not maintainable?
2. Is the trust deed No.20/2008 of the Perumkadavila SRO is liable to be declared as not binding on the plaintiff or any of the churches under 1st plaintiff as prayed for?
3. Is the relief of injunction as sought for by the plaintiffs is allowable?
4. Reliefs and costs?
The question is whether Ext.A9 trust deed is binding on the plaintiffs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, they have asserted that the merger is not binding on them. On what basis the merger is not binding on them is not clearly spelt out. There is a vague statement that the Bishop of the St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship) issued Kalpana No.4 dated 08.03.2008, stopping 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 21 all negotiations of merger. But the defendants did not care to produce the same nor examine the said Bishop or any representatives of the church to prove the said fact. Pertinently, only defendants 2 to 11 questioned the merger.
12. A perusal of Exts.A2, A3 and A4 would show that two Bishops of the St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India and one Bishop of the St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship) have given a joint declaration. The intention of the parties to give a joint declaration is evident from Ext.A5 paper publication. In such circumstances, the question before this Court would be whether, notwithstanding these aspects, the plaintiffs are under an obligation to prove that there is a merger. The trial court was swayed by extraneous considerations in venturing into the validity of the merger, as soon as the plea in the written statement was made by the defendants. The reliefs sought for in OS No.290/2008 were a declaration that the trust deed No.20 of 2008 of the Perumkadavila SRO is not binding on the first plaintiff church and an injunction to restrain defendants 2 to 11 from interfering with the spiritual administration of the church.
2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 22
13. It passes one's comprehension as to how the trial court could embark upon an exercise outside the scope of the suit. Admittedly, defendants 2 to 11 have formed a trust in the name of Evangelical Fellowship Missions of India and one of the objects of the trust is to establish a church. It appears that defendant no.1 had been appointed as the presbyter. Thus, the pertinent question before the court is whether the defendant nos. 1 to 11, having decided to form a separate church, could meddle with the spiritual and temporal administration of the 1st plaintiff church. When a group of individuals who decided to part away from the plaintiff church and decided to form a splinter group and decided to form a trust to establish a church cannot later interfere with the administration of the first plaintiff church. If, as a matter of fact, the defendants had a case that the merger was not valid, it was up to them to have challenged it in an appropriate proceedings and further establish that the merger is not in accordance with the constitution.
14. The trial court, however, relied on the decision of this Court in Jacob John & Ors. v. Rev. Thomas Williams [1953 KLT 605] to non-suit the plaintiffs. In the above decision, it was held as follows : "If the changes brought about as a result of the union are 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 23 of a fundamental character it cannot be said that the ideality of the old Church is preserved in the new Church and the members of the latter Church cannot be said to be the persons for whose benefit the Church was founded. The question whether a particular principle is a fundamental principle or not will depend solely upon the question whether the founders of the trust regarded it as a fundamental principle or not. When men subscribe money for a particular object and leave it behind them for the promotion of that object their successors have no right to change the object endowed. The majority has no power to compel the minority to follow them into the union under pain of loss of their Church."
15. However, the trial overlooked the fact that the above decision was reversed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Rev Thomas Williams v. John & Ors. [1961 KLT 58]. Para 19 of the decision reads as under:
"19. A truly congregational church is therefore one governed by the congregation and by no outside agency. Ministers in such a church are appointed by the congregation, the membership and the form of worship are also decided by the congregation. The High Court has accepted that the London Mission Churches "were not truly congregational in 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 24 character" : the autonomy of the churches was manifestly curtailed as a result of the formation of the Church Council and the union into the South Indian United Church and there was therefore a considerable element of Presbyterianism i. e., a system of centralised administration. It was never even suggested by any of the defendants that the pastors or Ministers of the church were ever appointed by the congregation or the affairs of the church administered without any external control. The congregation may have recommended the appointment of pastors, but the ultimate authority for administration was with the Travancore Church Council and not of the congregation. We have made these observations not with a view to decide whether the church was congregational in character, but only for the purpose of showing that prima facie the defence of the first defendant is somewhat remote from the realities of the church administration. It would have been necessary to consider the defence raised by the first defendant if the suit were defended in a representative capacity on behalf of the congregation. It is unfortunate that it was not realised that neither the London Missionary Society nor the congregation of the church was before the court and in the absence of these parties it was not possible to decide whether the union of the Church of South India was inconsistent with fundamental congregational principles and notwithstanding the 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 25 resolution passed by the Travancore Church Council, the Kadamalakunnu church could remain outside the union."
16. It is pertinent to mention that, except defendants 1 to 11 in OS No.290/2008, none have questioned the merger on the ground that it has not taken effect and due process of law has not been followed. Still further, this Court is of the view that the trial court was at complete remiss in not framing an issue regarding the validity of the merger which has caused serious prejudice to the plaintiffs. Though the learned Counsel for the respondents supported the findings stating that both parties went to trial fully knowing the issues and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be said to be prejudiced because of the non-framing of the issues, this Court cannot subscribe to the said contention. The evidence adduced in the case was purely aimed at establishing whether the relief in OS No.290 of 2008 can be granted or not.
17. That apart, the conscious silence on the part of the defendants in not producing the circular dated 8.3.2008 and not examining the representatives of the church to prove otherwise leads to an inference that the parties were never put on notice regarding their intention to substantiate the case of a merger or dispute the 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 26 same. The quality of evidence adduced by the parties points out their clear intention to confine the case as to whether the relief in the suit could be granted or not.
18. The pertinent question before the trial court was as to whether the trust deed is binding upon them. It is true that, defendants had raised a dispute regarding the merger. But then it must be remembered that the plaintiffs have discharged the burden of proving that there was a merger by producing Exts.A2 to A4 kalpanas and Exts.A5 to A7 paper publications. If, as a matter of fact, the defendants had a case that the said merger was invalid, they ought to have challenged it in an independent proceeding. In the absence of the challenge, one can safely conclude that the courts below went outside the scope of the suit and entered into an area which it was not supposed to do.
19. The other contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that any variation in the compromise decree could only be obtained through the permission of this Court, is also unsustainable. It must be noted that till filing of the present suit, there was no challenge to the merger except by defendants 2 to 11. Therefore, it is evident that the majority under the first plaintiff 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 27 church were accepting the case of merger, and only a few among the first plaintiff church had questioned the merger when OS No. 290/2008 was instituted. If that be so, it is inevitable for this Court to hold that the findings rendered by the trial court cannot be sustained.
20. The further argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that in the absence of a specific order under Order-XXI Rule-2 CPC, the merger has no efficacy of law also cannot be sustained. It is nobody's case that the merger is bad for want of sanction from the court which recorded the compromise. No pleading to the effect is seen raised in the written statement of defendants. In fact, one must remember that the said question can only be gone into in a properly constituted proceedings questioning the merger. In fact, neither of the churches subjected to merger has chosen to question the same. Therefore, this Court is inclined to think that in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rev. Thomas Williams (supra) the contention to the contrary is liable to be rejected.
21. Turning to the findings rendered by the first appellate court, this Court cannot but notice that the first appellate court went 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 28 completely wrong in venturing to decide the difference between "merger" and "amalgamation". Equally so is the finding that the suits are hit by Section 92 of the CPC. No issues were framed on the said point by the trial court. Moreover, in neither of the three suits, did the question of applicability of Section 92 fall for consideration. Thus, the first appellate court seems to have gathered its own thoughts on this issue and proceeded to decide the same.
22. It is indisputable that some of the members who had not consented to the amalgamation or the merger themselves joined hands for the formation of the trust by executing a trust deed in the name and style of Evangelical Fellowship Missions of India, and that the relief sought for in the plaint was to declare that the said trust deed is not binding on the plaintiffs. It is not shown before this Court as to how the defendants retained the authority or right to interfere with spiritual and temporal affairs of the plaintiff church. It is equally surprising to note that there is no question of framing a scheme for the management of the first plaintiff church being put in question in these proceedings. What was intended by instituting OS No. 290/2008 was simply to seek a declaration that the trust deed No.20 of 2008 was not binding on the 1st plaintiff church because of the 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 29 formation of a separate trust by a splinter group. Therefore, the findings by the first appellate court to the contrary were clearly without jurisdiction.
23. That apart, the defendants, except stating that the merger was illegal and not binding upon them, did not produce any material to show that they continued to manage the affairs of the St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship) even after merger. That be so, it passes one's comprehension as to how they could still maintain the stand before this Court that they continue to manage the affairs of the church. Even today, going by the interim order passed by this Court on 23.12.2015, which obliges the parties to be governed by the interim injunction dated 26.6.2008 as clarified by the order dated 25.7.2008, the defendants are prevented from interfering with the affairs of the appellant church. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that, the respondents continue to manage the affairs of the St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India (Fellowship) does not appear to be sound.
24. No other point raised for consideration.
25 . Resultantly, in the light of the discussions as above, this Court is inclined to answer the substantial questions of law framed in 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 30 RSA No.1246/2015 in favour of the appellants as under.
(i) The courts below went wrong in holding that the supreme body of a church governed by a constitution has no authority to take a decision regarding merger, especially when there is no prohibition under the constitution.
(ii) The first appellate court went wrong in holding that the suit was hit by Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 especially when no relief under Section 92 was claimed.
(iii) The courts went wrong in not considering the impact of Ext.A9 qua the plaintiffs, especially when a new church was formed by defendants in the name Evangelical Fellowship Missions of India and that the plaintiffs were entitled to get a declaration as prayed for, especially since defendants 2 to 11 do not have any right to claim administration of the church.
(iv) The courts below went wrong in considering the effect of merger, especially when no issues were framed and that too when defendants 2 to 11 had created a new trust and established a new church, thus indicating that they are staying away from the affairs of the 1st plaintiff church.
26. In the light of the discussion as above, this Court is of the 2026:KER:15849 RSA Nos.1246, 1245 & 1242/2015 31 considered view that RSA Nos.1246/2015 and 1245/2015 are to be allowed. Insofar as RSA No.1242/2015 is concerned, it is submitted that at present the publication of the magazine is stopped by them. Therefore, no further reliefs are required to be granted in the aforesaid appeal/suit. Accordingly, these appeals are ordered as follows:
1. RSA No.1242/2015 is dismissed as having become infructuous.
However, the appellants will be at liberty to institute such proceedings if, in future, their rights are affected.
2. RSA Nos.1245/2015 and 1246/2015 are allowed by reversing the common judgments and decrees dated 18.8.2015 and 28.3.2015, respectively, in AS Nos.68/2015 and 69/2015 of the District Court, Pathanamthitta and OS Nos.19/2008 and 290/2008 of the Munsiff's Court, Ranny. OS Nos. 290/2008 and 19/2008 are decreed as prayed for.
Ordered Accordingly. Cost made easy.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S. JUDGE jg