Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 filed a joint written statement contending, among others, that the first defendant Church has never accepted the 1934 Constitution and the same, on the other hand, was being administered in accordance with Ext.B3 Udambady executed in the year 1890. According to them, as per the terms of Ext.B3 Udambady, the Parishioners of the Church are bound to obey and stand with the Patriarch of Antioch and the Metropolitans ordained by him. It is stated by them that when the Apex Court held in P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Thomas (AIR 1995 SC 2001) that the Church is RFA.Nos.320 2014 & con. cases liable to be administered in accordance with the 1934 Constitution, the Parishioners of the first defendant Church convened a meeting and accepted the Constitution of the Jacobite Syrian Christan Association. According to them, the first defendant Church thus disassociated with Malankara Association and became part of the Jacobite Syrian Christian Association and the Church is being administered thereafter in accordance with the Constitution of the said Association. It was also contended by the said defendants that since the first defendant Church was not a party to P.M.A.Metropolitan's case (supra), the decision in the said case is not binding on the first defendant Church.

17. Sri.Sajan Varghese, the learned Counsel for the appellants in R.F.A.No.118 of 2015 contended, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in S.P.Mittal v. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 1) that the impugned judgement which takes away the right of administration of the first defendant Church from the Patriarch faction and vests with the Catholicos faction would amount to violation of the fundamental right guaranteed to the Parishioners belonging to the Catholicos faction under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. On the merits, the learned Counsel contended that the first defendant Church has never been a constituent Church of the Malankara Church and the same is an independent Church administered in accordance RFA.Nos.320 2014 & con. cases with Ext.B3 Udambaby. The learned counsel pointed out that there are independent Churches like Simhasanam Churches referred to in Moran Mar Baseliose Marthoma Mathews I v. Most Rev. Poulose Mar Athansios (1990(2) KLT supplement), under the Patriarch of Antioch. It was also pointed out by the learned Counsel that on 30.3.2003, the general body of the Church accepted the Constitution of the Jacobite Syrian Christian Association and thereafter the Church is being administered in accordance with the Constitution of the said Association. According to the learned counsel, the Parishioners of the first defendant Church have all the right to disassociate with Malankara Association and become part of the Jacobite Syrian Christian Association. It was contended by the learned counsel that the said right of the Parishioners is part of the fundamental right guaranteed to them under article 19 of the Constitution of India. He relied on paragraphs 43, 44, 49, 51 and 57 of the decision reported in Moran Mar Baselious Marthoma Mathews II v. State of Kerala (2003(1) KLT 780) in support of the said contention.

But public charities are of permanent character, the membership of which keeps on fluctuating. Lewin on Trust explained a 'charitable trust' thus, 'a public or charitable trust, on the other hand, has for its object the members of an uncertain and fluctuating body and the trust itself is of a permanent and indefinite character and is not confined within the limits prescribed to a settlement upon a private trust. These trusts may be said to have as their object some purpose recognised by the law rather than human beneficiaries'. Tudor on Charities at page 131 of 6th Edn. has stated thus, 'when a charity has been founded and trusts have been declared, the founder has no power to revoke, vary or add to the trusts. This is so irrespective of whether the trusts have been declared by an individual, or by a body of subscribers or by trustees'. That the Parish Churches were established for promoting ideals of RFA.Nos.320 2014 & con. cases Syrian Orthodox or jacobite Church has been the consistent claim of both the Patriarch and the Catholicos. Its nature cannot be changed by the persons who are entrusted to manage it. They were episcopal in character when they were found, they continue to be so at present and shall remain so in future. The character of public charities from episcopal to congregational cannot be changed as it would be against basic purpose for which these Churches were established.In Attorney General v. Pearson, 1814-23 All England Law Reports (Rep) 60 at 63 it was observed as under :

True, paragraph 69 of the judgment in P.M.A.Metropolitan's case (supra) as extracted above, is a part of the minority judgment, but a perusal of the judgment indicates that the said minority view is not in conflict with the majority view in that case. It is thus evident that the contention that the Parishioners RFA.Nos.320 2014 & con. cases of the first defendant Church disassociated with the Malankara Church and became part of the Jacobite Syrian Christian Association for its administration, cannot be accepted. As regards the arguments developed on the strength of the decision of this Court reported in Moran Mar Baselios Marthoma Mathews II v. State of Kerala (2003 (1) KLT