Kerala High Court
Knanaya Committee vs Thomas Elias
Author: K.Abraham Mathew
Bench: K.Abraham Mathew
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
TUESDAY,THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/25TH PHALGUNA, 1937
OP(C).No. 1761 of 2015 (O)
--------------------------------------
IA.1678/2015 INN OS.506/2013 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM
-------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
1. KNANAYA COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
ELIAS ZACHARIA PARAYIL, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.P.E.ZACHARIAH,
PAAREL ULUMTHURUTHIL, NEELAMPEROOR PO- 686534,
MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ASSOCIATION,
MAR APREM SEMINARY,CHINGAVANAM PO, KOTTAYAM,
PIN CODE 686531.
2. KURIAKOSE MAR IVANIOS, AGED 50 YEARS,
METROPOLITAN IN CHARGE OF THE RANNY, REGION
OF THE KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE,
ANGADY PO, RANNY,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN CODE 689674.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VISWANATHAN
SRI.SUNIL N.SHENOI
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THOMAS ELIAS, AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O.LATE P.T.PAAREL, PAAREL HOUSE,
NOW RESIDING AT C.203, CHANDRAKIRAN APARTMENT, 42/1,
NETHAJI ROAD, FRAZE TOWN, BANGALORE, PIN 560005.
2. FR. A.T.THOMAS ARAKKAL, AGED 64 YEARS,
S/O.THOMAS, PRESIDENT OF THE KNANAYA COMMITTEE
MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ASSOCIATION,
MAR APREM SEMINARY,CHINGAVANAM PO, KOTTAYAM,
PIN CODE 686531
3. K.K.KURUVILA, AGED 70 YEARS,
S/O.KURUVILLA,
THE TRUSTEE OF MALANKARA SURIYANI KNAYNAYA SAMUDAYAM
MAR APREM SEMINARY,CHINGAVANAM PO, KOTTAYAM,
PIN CODE 686531.
PJ
....2/-
..2..
OP(C).No. 1761 of 2015 (O)
--------------------------------------
4. KURIAKOSE MAR SEVERIOS ARCH BISHOP AND
CHIEF METROPOLITAN OF KNANAYA ARCH DIOCES IN INDIA,
MAR APREM SEMINARY,CHINGAMANAM PO, NATTAKOM VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE 686531.
5. KURIAKOSE MAR GREGARIOUS, AGED 62 YEARS,
METROPOLITAN IN CHARGE OF KALLISSERY REGION OF THE KNANAYA
ARCH DIOCESE,
BETH MEHRIN, THIRVALLA, PIN CODE 689541.
6. AYOUB MAR SILVANOS, AGED 48 YEARS,
ARCH BISHOP OF THE KNANAYA SYRIAN CHURCHES IN AMERICA,
CANADA AND EUROPE, C/O.MAR APREM SEMINARY,
CHINGAMANAM P.O., NATTAKOM VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686531.
* ADDL.R7 IMPLEADED
7. T.O.ELIAS, TRUSTEE,
THE MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA SAMUDAYAM,
MAR APREM SEMINARY,CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686531.
ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13/8/15 IN IA.11906/15 IN OPC.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
SRI.A.K.ALEX
SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI (VENNELA)
R4 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
R6 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-03-2016, ALONG
WITH OPC. 2455/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
OP(C).No. 1761 of 2015 (O)
-------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
P1: THE TRUE PHOTSTAT COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.506/2013 ON THE FILES
OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM
P2: THE TRUE PHOTSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA.NO.2434/2013
DATED 24.09.2013
P3: THE TRUE PHOTSTAT COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST
DEFANDANT
P4: THE TRUE PHOTSTAT COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE
DEFENDANTS
P5: THE TRUE PHOTSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2014 DISMISSING
THE SUIT FOR DEFAULT
P6: THE TRUE PHOTSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2014 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP.(C)NO.2363/2014
P7: THE TRUE PHOTSTAT COPY OF IA.NO.1678/2015 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF
P8: THE TRUE PHOTSTAT COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 4TH
DEFENDANT
P9: THE TRUE PHOTSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2015 PASSED IN
IA.NO.1678/2015
P10: THE TRUE COPY OF THE UN- AMENDED CONSTITUION OF THE 1ST
DEFENDANT ASSOCIATION
P11: THE TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED CONSTITUTION OF THE 1ST DEFENDANT
ASSOCIATION
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9/4/14 IN OS.402/11 OF THE
MUNSIFF'S COURT KOTTAYAM
R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE KALPANA DATED 1/11/14 OF THE R4 IMPLEMENTING THE
DISPUTED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IN THE KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE
WITH EFFECT FROM 1/11/14
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
O.P.(C).Nos.1761 & 2455 of 2015, 56, 103 & 246 of 2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in all the Original Petitions except O.P.1761 of 2015 is a member of Malankara Suriyani Knanaya Church. The petitioner in O.P.No.1761 of 2015 is Knanaya committee which is the third respondent in all the other Original Petitions. All these Original Petitions arise from O.S.No.506 of 2013 of Additional Munsiff, Kottayam filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:
a) to declare that defendants 1 to 3 are not having any right or authority to call for the meeting of 1st defendant association without permission from 5th defendant and that they have violated clause 124 of the Bhadrasana Constitution.
b) to declare that the defendants 1 to 3 have no authority to amend the Constitution of the Bhadrasanam as proposed in the draft Constitution Amendment Memorandum approved along with the plaint, and to declare it as illegal, void and outcome of abuse of authority and beyond the jurisdiction of defendant Association, in view of clause-98B of the Bhadrasana Constitution.
2. The object of the suit is mainly to assert the supremacy of the 5th respondent Arch Bishop and Chief Metropolitan of Knanaya Arch Diocese, who is the 5th respondent in all these Original Petitions filed by the plaintiff.
3. The prayers in O.P No.2455 of 2015 are to declare that all actions taken by the first respondent Knanaya Association at its meeting held on 25.8.2015 after the passing of the status quo O.P.(C).Nos.1761 & 2455 of 2015, 56, 103 & 246 of 2016 2 order by this court in Ext P6 judgment are illegal and the proposal to convene a meeting on 13.10.2015 is illegal. The second prayer has become infructuous. Admittedly, the first respondent took some actions after the passing of the order of status quo by this court. Those actions are non est and cannot have any force.
4. The prayers in OP No.56 of 2016 are follows:
i) set aside Ext P7 and Ext P8 communications and Ext P10 order of 8th respondent, since they are issued ignoring and defying Ext P2 order of the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam, which is still in force and Ext P10 order is issued without the authority of law and ignoring the supremacy of 5th respondent over the North American Knanaya Community.
ii) issue necessary order or direction to 8th respondent, directing him not to exercise any power as provided in Ext P4A Constitution.
5. Exts P7 and P8 communications which are sought to be set aside in OP No.56 of 2016 are two letters written by the Metropolitan of America, Canada and European region to the 5th respondent Chief Metropolitan. Ext P10 which is also sought to be set aside is a letter written by the same Metropolitan to the priests, managing committee members and the members of the parishioners in North America and Canada. There is no question of setting aside letters written by one of the parties to the litigation. Moreover, Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to set aside those documents. There is no prayer to set aside any orders O.P.(C).Nos.1761 & 2455 of 2015, 56, 103 & 246 of 2016 3 passed by the trial court.
6. The main relief prayed for in O.P.(C) No.103 of 2016 is to declare that respondents 6 to 8 have no right to enter the Association hall in the seminary at Chingavanam when the meeting of the Knanaya Association is held. The other relief is to appoint a commissioner to watch the proceedings in the meeting to be held on 12.1.2016. The declaration sought for cannot be granted. The prayer to appoint a commissioner to watch the proceedings of the meeting has become infructuous.
7. The main prayer in O.P.No.246 of 2016 is to declare that the meeting convened on 25.1.2016 is illegal. This has become infructuous. The other relief is to issue directions to respondents 5 to 8 not to convene any meeting of the Metropolitan Council to take decisions on the administrative affairs of the Archdiocese till the disposal of the suit. This is a matter to be agitated before the Munsiff Court. This court cannot entertain such prayer in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. The petitioner in O.P.No.1761 of 2015 is Knanaya Committee which is one of the respondents in other petitions. The prayer is to set aside Ext P9 order and to direct the learned Munsiff to dispose of the suit itself without further delay. Ext P9 order relates to a meeting proposed to be held on 7.7.2015. This prayer has become infructuous. Having regard to the facts of the case, a O.P.(C).Nos.1761 & 2455 of 2015, 56, 103 & 246 of 2016 4 direction can be issued to the learned Munsiff to dispose of the suit without inordinate delay.
9. At the hearing it was submitted that the first respondent took some actions after the passing of the injunction order by the learned Munsiff. But there is no dispute that those decisions were approved by the respondent Arch Bishop and Chief Metropolitan of Knanaya Arch Diocese. The suit itself is to assert his supremacy. This court cannot interfere with the decisions taken by the first respondent and approved by the respondent Arch Bishop and Chief Metropolitan.
10. The suit was once dismissed for default. The first respondent took some decisions after the dismissal of the suit and its restoration later. Those decisions are not affected by the restoration of the suit though all interlocutory applications stood restored with the restoration of the suit.
In the result, these Original Petitions are disposed of. It is declared that the decisions taken by the first respondent after the passing of Ext P6 judgment are non est and they will have no force. The decisions taken by the first respondent and approved by the Arch Bishop and Chief Metropolitan of Knanaya Arch Diocese will continue to be in force subject to the result of the suit. The decisions taken by the first respondent between the dismissal of the suit for default and its restoration also will continue to be in force O.P.(C).Nos.1761 & 2455 of 2015, 56, 103 & 246 of 2016 5 subject to the result of the suit. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this judgment, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
JUDGE
cms
/True copy/ P.S.to Judge
The words "first respondent" mentioned in the 9th and 10th paragraphs and in the relief portion of the common judgment dated 15.3.2016 in O.P(C) No.1761/2015 and connected cases are corrected and substituted as "first defendant in the suit" as per order dated 28.9.2017 in R.P.No.425/2016 in O.P(C) No.1761/2015.
Registrar (Judicial)