Judgment :- 1. These two civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of two orders passed by the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta, in O.S. No. 69 of 1973. C M A No. 159/74 is against an order refusing to grant an injunction restraining the respondents and their agents and representatives from interfering with any of the affairs of the plaint church, viz., St. Thomas Valiya Palli at Omallur which is a Jacobite Syrian Church. Four plaintiffs, alleging themselves to be members of that Church and its Managing Committee, filed the suit for a declaration that the plaint church and the properties appertaining thereto are held by the parishioners upon trust and be managed as such and alternatively for a declaration that there are two independent sections in the plaint church known as Patriarch section represented by the plaintiffs and defendants 2, 5 and 7 and the Catholicose section represented by defendants 1, 3, 4 and 6, and that they are entitled to manage their own affairs in the plaint church. The said church was founded some 500 years ago for the worship of God according to the faith, doctrine and practice of the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church with the Patriarch of Antioch as its head. The original purpose of the foundation was to remain independent of any superior religious organisation and to be governed by its own members or by persons elected by them. According to the faith of the founders of the plaint church, the priests and the other religious dignitaries must have received spiritual grace from the Holy Throne of St. Peter and no other. It is their faith that the spiritual grace and apostolic succession can be obtained only from the Throne of St. Peter on which the Patriarch is seated The plaint church and the properties appertaining thereto are held subject to a trust that the same shall, at all times be used for the above purposes without any deviation. The practice and discipline of the plaint church enjoin that the Metropolitan thereof must be a Bishop consecrated by the hands or under the authority and commission of the Patriarch of Antioch who is the successor on the Throne of St. The practice and discipline of the plaint church enjoin that the Metropolitan thereof must be a Bishop consecrated by the hands or under the authority and commission of the Patriarch of Antioch who is the successor on the Throne of St. Peter and be accepted or elected by the people over whom he exercises power; that the Metropolitans, Kathanars, and Parishioners shall owe allegiance to and be obedient to the said Patriarch in all spiritual matters concerning the Jacobite Syrian Church; that all religious dignitaries in the Parish church including the Metropolitan shall at the time of their ordination take an oath of obedience and loyalty to the supreme spiritual head of the Church, the Patriarch of Antioch; and that the jurisdiction and powers of all religious dignitaries above the rank of Kathanars and Vicars are confined to purely spiritual matters only. The Jacobite Syrian Church including the plaint church adopted the book containing the rules of Canon which has been accepted by the Patriarch of Antioch. Subject to usage, these rules are followed in all ecclesiastical matters. The Malankara Jacobite Syrian Association or the Thumpamon Diocesan Council or any other body has no control over the administration of the plaint church which is an independent unit by itself. For long there were two parties in the Malankara Sabha, and after a decision of the Supreme Court in 1958, a union of the two parties was attempted. The differences between the parties regarding the correct version of the book of Canons, regarding the constitution and regarding the powers of the Patriarch. Catholicose and Metropolitans remained unsettled. In 1964 there was a further attempt for the union of the above parties when the Patriarch of Antioch ordained a Catholicose of the East. The two parties agreed to have the religious service in the plaint church conducted by their own priests on every alternate week. But, subsequent events have convinced the plaintiffs and those who go with them that the Catholicose party had no bona fides in their profession and are attempting to liquidate the Partiarch party. Defendants 1, 3, 4 and 6 refused allegiance and obedience to the Patriarch of Antioch. The first defendant Metropolitan of Thumpamon Diocese is using a book of ordination in which the name of the Patriarch of Antioch is either omitted or scored off. Defendants 1, 3, 4 and 6 refused allegiance and obedience to the Patriarch of Antioch. The first defendant Metropolitan of Thumpamon Diocese is using a book of ordination in which the name of the Patriarch of Antioch is either omitted or scored off. The ordinated persons are not allowed to take the oath of allegiance to the Patriarch. They accept and treat the Catholicose as the head of the Church. The Catholicose is only a spiritual dignitary with powers to ordain Metropolitans and consecrate Moran (Holy oil) on behalf and with the sanction of the Patriarch. He has no temporal or administrative powers as claimed by him. In order to deny the spiritual supremacy and powers of the Patriarch who is seated on the Throne of St. Peter, defendants 1, 3, 4 and 6 and those who go with them have propounded a theory that all disciples of Christ have established Thrones and that the spiritual grace necessary for the efficacy of the ordinations of religious dignitaries can emanate from any such Throne. They have invented a Throne for St. Thomas, who is said to have visited South India in 52 A.D. They profess belief in a Throne which, they allege, has been established in the Malankara Sabha by him. They further believe that Catholicose is seated on that Throne and that spiritual grace and apostolic succession can be obtained from that throne. They also believe that Catholicose and Patriarch are equal in the heirarchy of the Church and the former need not be obedient to the latter in anything and that the Catholicose can be ordained without the Patriarch. All these are deviations from the original objects for which the Church is founded and against the provisions of the Canon. Defendants 1, 3,4 and 6 and their followers have made unauthorised changes in the liturgy used in the plaint church. The importance given to the Patriarch has been taken away and has given a place subordinate to that of the Catholicose. They also refuse to accept the true version of the Canon and are following a wrong Canon which was rejected in the previous litigations between the same parties. The first defendant is not a properly ordained Bishop, as he was not ordained by the Patriarch or his delegate. He has not taken the oath of allegiance to the Patriarch. They also refuse to accept the true version of the Canon and are following a wrong Canon which was rejected in the previous litigations between the same parties. The first defendant is not a properly ordained Bishop, as he was not ordained by the Patriarch or his delegate. He has not taken the oath of allegiance to the Patriarch. He was ordained on 15-4-1953 by persons who had no authority from the Patriarch. The respect given to him after 1959 was only as a matter of courtesy. The constitution was adopted by the Malankara Association in 1951 which is against the resolution unanimously adopted at the Mulanthuruthy Synod held in 1050 M.E. The defendants having realised that plaintiffs and their followers are unwilling to deviate from the original principles for which the church was founded, the Ist defendant and his partisans tried to remove the priests of the Patriarch section and to appoint new priests in their place, who belong to the Catholicose section. On 19-6-73 the first defendant issued an order purporting to remove the 2nd defendant from his functions as Vicar and priest in the church. This was opposed by the Patriarch section as it is against the usage of the Church, and a suit is pending relating to this matter in the Munsiff's Court, Pathanamthitta. The first defendant has no right to remove the second defendant from the Church. He was ordained for the plaint Edavaka by a competent Metropolitan and accepted and appointed therein from 1925 as its priest and Vicar. He is entitled to function for life. The first defendant is also trying to remove defendants 5 and 7 from their office as priests in the plaint church for which also he has no authority. It is the custom and usage in the plaint church from, the date of its establishment to nominate or elect persons by the parishioners or its Pothuyogam as their priests and to send the person so nominated or elected to a properly ordained Metropolitan to be ordained as a priest. The priests thus ordained are allowed by the parishioners to function in the church as priests or Vicars for life. The priests thus appointed are not liable to be removed or transferred by any authority without the express consent of the priest himself and of the parishioners. The priests thus ordained are allowed by the parishioners to function in the church as priests or Vicars for life. The priests thus appointed are not liable to be removed or transferred by any authority without the express consent of the priest himself and of the parishioners. The perquisites and remuneration of the priests are paid by the members of the church. The first defendant claims to be in the position of master and servant relationship with the priests. This arrangement was stopped from January 1973 after which the plaintiffs and their section refused to pay the amount to the first defendant and they continued to pay directly the remuneration of their priests. On these allegations the suit was filed and a temporary injunction was asked for. 2. The contesting defendants denied that there are two parties in the plaint church. Ever since 1959 there is no division in the plaint parish and administration of the parish is being carried on under the orders of the first defendant, according to the rules mentioned in the Bharanaghatana which has been accepted by the Patriarch of Antioch. The said Bharannghatana has been accepted an d acted upon by the plaint church and from 1959 onwards there is only one Metropolitan, one Vicar, one Trustee and one Malankara Association. The plaint church is one of the churches of the Orthodox Syrian Church which is governed by the Bharannngatana accepted by all the parishioners including the parties to the suit. It is not correct to say that the faith of the plaint church is that spiritual grace and apostolic succession can be obtained only from the Holy Throne of St. Peter. Such a doctrine is newly invented by the second defendant and his partisans with some selfish motives. The practice and discipline of the plaint church are governed by the Bharanagatana which enjoins that the Metropolitan must be a Bishop consecrated by the head of the Church who is the Catholicose of the East. The Metropolitans, Kathanars and Parishioners shall owe allegiance and obedience to the Catholicose. All the parishioners of the plaint church have accepted the above principle and practice and the plaintiffs are estopped from contending otherwise. The plaint church has never accepted any congregational principles. It is an episcopal church. The Malankara Syrian Christian Association and the Thumpamon Diocesan Council have complete control over the administration of the plaint church. All the parishioners of the plaint church have accepted the above principle and practice and the plaintiffs are estopped from contending otherwise. The plaint church has never accepted any congregational principles. It is an episcopal church. The Malankara Syrian Christian Association and the Thumpamon Diocesan Council have complete control over the administration of the plaint church. There is no parallel administration as alleged by the plaintiffs. The Catholicose is the accepted head of the Church and the 1st defendant is using the accepted book of ordination. The plaintiffs, in order to create a division in the parish as well as in the whole Church are trying to propagate a doctrine which is foreign to the Orthodox Syrian Church and to other Churches as well. All the differences between the parties have been settled and all the parishioners including the plaintiffs have accepted the Catholicose as head of the church and the administration of the plaint church was carried on solely on the basis of the Bharanagatana. Defendants 1, 3, 4 and 6 have not committed any breach of trust. The first defendant has got a right to transfer the second defendant. The allegation of the plaintiffs that each section pays remuneration to their respective priests is denied. The position of master and servant relationship. has been accepted and acted upon by all the parties including defendants 2, 5 and 7. The rule regarding the administration of the church is that the Vicar with elected trustees will function as trustees. There is no sectional elections at any time. All the members of the Pothuyogam will elect a layman trustee as per the constitution. 3. The learned Sub Judge, on these various averments and on the documents produced before him, came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have not established a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction against defendants 1, 3, 4 and 6 and hence dismissed the application. 4. In these appeals, the plaintiffs have taken up the main contention that the first defendant has become a heretic because he is preaching and practising a faith which is against the accepted faith and creed of the congregation for the propagation of which the plaint church was founded. There are no materials prima facie to support it. Whether he has set up a throne to St. There are no materials prima facie to support it. Whether he has set up a throne to St. Thomas and if so what follows from it, whether this is set up only as a plume to his ecclesiastical cap or as an additional adjective to his long title, and whether that in any way is a fundamental deviation from the doctrines followed by the Orthodox Syrian Church to make him a heretic are all matters for consideration at the final stage. Admittedly, first defendant is a Metropolitan of the Diocese in which the plaint church is situated. There is no dispute that the Metropolitan has got the power and control over the spiritual affairs of the Church. Therefore, so long as the first defendant holds the office of the Metropolitan of the Thumpamon Diocese, he has got the spiritual authority over the plaint church. There is no prayer to remove him on the ground that he has ceased to hold the tenets of the church. Unless there is a case made out and relief asked for to remove the first defendant, there is no ground to restrain him from exercising his authority as a Metropolitan. So far as the temporal affairs of the church are concerned, Exts. BI, B2, B8 to B13, B19, B20 and B25, prima facie show that the Metropolitan of the Thumpamon Diocese which position is now occupied by the first defendant has been exercising powers over the temporalities of the plaint church such as the administration of funds, appointment and removal of priests to and' from the churches under his jurisdiction and giving directions and instructions regarding the administration of the plaint church. It is also seen from the records that even in the matter of election to the Managing Committee of the churches under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Thumpamon Diocese, approval of the first defendant was sought for by the Vicars of the respective churches. It is further seen that defendants 2, 5 and 7 had been submitting reports to the first defendant for approval and ratification of the election to the Managing Committee conducted by them and certifying the fitness of the persons elected. In the light of these, it is idle for the plaintiffs and defendants 2, 5 and 7 to contend that they are not subject to the administrative jurisdiction of the first defendant. In the light of these, it is idle for the plaintiffs and defendants 2, 5 and 7 to contend that they are not subject to the administrative jurisdiction of the first defendant. There is no evidence to show that each party has authority and is entitled to manage their own affairs independently in the plaint church. Question whether Ext. B21. which is a copy of the constitution, adopted by the Malankara Association is binding on the plaintiffs and the plaint church can be settled finally only at the end of the trial. The various records produced in this case prima facie show that it is binding on the plaintiffs and it is in compliance with that the plaintiffs and defendants 2, 5 and 7 were functioning under the first defendant. Therefore, we agree with the. learned Sub Judge in his conclusion that the plaintiffs have not established a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction. 5. The appellants' counsel referred to Art.25 and 26 of the constitution and argued that the plaintiffs form a distinct section for religious denomination and they are entitled to manage their own affairs. This is a matter which is not raised before the lower court. Even otherwise, that depends on the question whether they are two sections having distinct religious doctrines and whether there is scope for any one section to claim exclusive right over the plaint church. Plaint church is only a unit of a larger Malankara Sabha. The Malankara Sabha has its own constitution comprehending ecclesiastical and temporal matters. A decision on the claim of the right to manage the affairs of the plaint church independently of the Malankara Sabha and its constitution can be arrived at only after the end of the trial. There is no material even to come to a prima facie conclusion that plaintiffs form a different section or that the plaint church belongs to that section. Therefore, contention under Art.25 and 26 of the Constitution is not correct. 6. It is needless to say that peace and unity are essential for the religious worship in the plaint church. The first defendant who stands by the constitution Ext. B21 is bound to observe it. That constitution provides for certain privileges to the various dignitaries. That must be respected. That provides also for the book of Canon to be followed, for all religious matters. The first defendant who stands by the constitution Ext. B21 is bound to observe it. That constitution provides for certain privileges to the various dignitaries. That must be respected. That provides also for the book of Canon to be followed, for all religious matters. The first defendant is not competent to go against this constitution and the book of Canon adopted by the constitution in any of the religious affairs in the plaint church. To that extent alone the plaintiffs are entitled to get a direction. The first defendant is not allowed to go against Ext. B21 constitution and the book of canon adopted under it in exercising his powers as Metropolitan of the Thumpamon Diocese to which the plaint church belongs. Subject to the above direction this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their costs. 7. C. M. A. 169/74 is against an order of the learned Sub Judge refusing to appoint a Receiver for the management of the affairs of the plaint church until the disposal of the suit. In the light of our conclusion that the appellants have not established a prima facie case the order of the lower court dismissing the petition has only to be upheld. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants did not also press the appeal. Hence it is also dismissed. No costs.