Judgment :- 1. These civil miscellaneous appeals are filed against the order of the Alleppey Additional Sub Judge in O. S. No. 79 of 1974 The above suit is filed by the Catholicos of the East cum Malankara Metropolitan and his Assistant for an injunction restraining the defendant from entering or exercising any episcopal or priestly functions or solemnising any of the sacraments in any of the churches of the Malankara especially the Mepral St John's Church and other churches scheduled to the plaint. There is also a prayer for a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to function as the Metropolitan or to interfere in the administration of the Malankara Church or to function even as a priest without submitting to the authority of the 1st plaintiff and the constitution of the church. The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is a religious community with a very large number of members worshipping in number of parish churches in different parts of the State and outside For convenience of administration the Church is sub-divided into number of dioceses For a long period in the history of this Church there were disputes and those disputes were subject-matters of decision by the Travancore Royal Court of Final Appeal, Travancore High Court. Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court. The history of this church and the nature of the disputes have all been traced in the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Avira (1958 KLT 721). One group generally known as the Patriarchal party wanted to establish that the other group, commonly known as the Catholicos party have become heretics and thus have no right to administer religious and temporal matters of the Malankara Church. The constitution framed and adopted at a meeting of the Malankara Association in 1934 was attacked as invalid and that adoption itself was alleged as an act of violation of the fundamentals of the Malankara Church. The Supreme Court in the above mentioned decision gave a quietus to that controversy. Both the groups were held to belong to the Malankara Church and the meeting of the Malankara Association held in 1934 to adopt a constitution was held to be valid Copy of that constitution is produced in this case as Ext. A-1. Thereafter the two groups came together and there was some sort of religious peace in the community for some time. A-1. Thereafter the two groups came together and there was some sort of religious peace in the community for some time. The various dioceses were reorganised by the Malankara Association, their number was increased and all the Metropolitans ordained previous to the decision of the Supreme Court accepted the Catholicos of the East and Malankara Metropolitan as the head of the Malankara Church subject to the constitution. Unfortunately, disputes affecting the religious peace seem to have cropped up again in some parishes. The defendant in this case, a priest appointed by the 1st plaintiff as Vicar of the Mepral St. John's Church went to Syria and claiming that he has been consecrated and ordained as Metropolitan of the Malankara Church wanted to function as such bypassing the 1st plaintiff who is the Catholicos of the East and Malankara Metropolitan. The plaintiffs apprehended that he may interfere with the conduct of religious worship and administration of the Church properties and have filed the suit for the above reliefs. Along with the plaint the 2nd plaintiff who is an Assistant of the 1st plaintiff and who has joined the suit on the direction of the 1st plaintiff to facilitate the conduct of the suit, filed an application for an injunction restraining the defendant from ordaining priests or declaring or performing any other sacraments or service in the Malankara Church or in its institution and further for an injunction to restrain him from interfering in the performance of religious services and sacraments by others appointed by the 1st plaintiff. The defendant disputed the right of the 1st plaintiff to question his right to function as Vicar of the aforesaid Church. He claimed that his consecration as a Metropolitan by the Patriarch of Antioch is valid and cannot be questioned by the 1st plaintiff. He further alleged that the plaintiffs having defied the spiritual powers of the Patriarch of Antioch by setting up a bogus throne in the name of St. Thomas as a rival throne to that of St. Peter, have become schismatics and cannot exercise any of the powers of a Catholicos or Metropolitan in the Malankara church. He further alleged that the Malankara Sabha consists of two parties and the plaint churches follow the religious belief and practice of the Patriarch party. The defendant denied that there was any acceptance of the constitution by the Patriarch's party. Peter, have become schismatics and cannot exercise any of the powers of a Catholicos or Metropolitan in the Malankara church. He further alleged that the Malankara Sabha consists of two parties and the plaint churches follow the religious belief and practice of the Patriarch party. The defendant denied that there was any acceptance of the constitution by the Patriarch's party. He claimed that the Patriarch of Antioch has full powers to consecrate Bishops in the Malankara church and this power is not taken away by the constitution. On these contentions the question whether the plaintiffs have got a prima facie case was gone into by the learned Sub Judge for the purpose of disposal of the injunction petition and finding that issued an injunction against the defendant restraining him from functioning as Metropolitan. But, assuming that there are two factions in the church he passed an order allowing the defendant to conduct religious services in the Mepral St. Joseph's Church on alternate weeks. This order has not satisfied any of the parties to the suit. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed C.M.A. No. 164/74 and the defendant has filed C.M.A. No. 182/74. In C.M. A. No. 164/74 the plaintiffs have objected to the direction in the order permitting the defendant to conduct religious services in St. John's Church on alternate weeks. In C.M.A. No. 182/74 the defendant has challenged the correctness of the order restraining him from functioning as the Metropolitan. and restricting his right to conduct religious services only on alternate weeks. 2. As seen from the Supreme Court judgment reported in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Avira (1958 KLT 721) each of the two factions in the Malankara Church was trying to get control over the churches and other institutions and the present plaintiffs' group was sought to be declared heretics. But that did not succeed. So, both the parties continued to be members of the Malankara Sabha. A meeting of the Malankara Sabha convened in 1934 had adopted a constitution and a copy of that constitution as amended subsequently is marked in this case as Ext. Al. But that did not succeed. So, both the parties continued to be members of the Malankara Sabha. A meeting of the Malankara Sabha convened in 1934 had adopted a constitution and a copy of that constitution as amended subsequently is marked in this case as Ext. Al. Provision is made in it for the sub-division of the Sabha into dioceses, for constituting managing committees and appointing other office bearers for each diocese, for reorganising the Malankara Association, constituting a Metropolitan Council for the ordination of Metropolitans, Catholicos and Patriarch, and for disciplinary proceedings to be taken against any for violation of the rules. Chap.1 R.1 recognises the office of Patriarch of Antioch and rule to declares the Catholicos as the head of the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East. R.4 prescribes the qualification for becoming a member of the Sabha. R.5 provides for the Hudaya Canon to be followed. Chap.2 provides for an Edavaka, an association of the parishioners, a managing Committee for each parish, and for the appointment of Vicar and Kykars. The matters to be attended to at the meeting of the parishioners are also provided for in that chapter. Chap.3 provides for the constitution of a diocese, a council for the diocese and allotment of diocese for a Metropolitan. Chap.4 makes provision for the Malankara Association, a managing committee for it, trustees to be elected, for the consecration and ordination of Malankara Metropolitan, Catholicos and Patriarchs. A Bishops' Council with a Synod and other miscellaneous matters are also controlled by specific provisions in the constitution. This constitution has been found to be valid in the Supreme Court case referred to above. The defendant was appointed as a Vicar as per the provisions of the Constitution by the Niranam Metropolitan. St. Joseph's Church at Mepral also prima facie seems to have accepted the constitution. Ext. A4 is the certificate issued from the Mepral Edavaka intimating the Malankara Association of the representatives whom they are sending for the Malankara Association meetings. Such a letter of representation is required under the constitution. Plaintiffs have produced other documents which show that St. John's Church and the parishioners of that church and the defendant were following the constitution till very recently. That being so, it is not prima facie open to them to ignore these provisions. Such a letter of representation is required under the constitution. Plaintiffs have produced other documents which show that St. John's Church and the parishioners of that church and the defendant were following the constitution till very recently. That being so, it is not prima facie open to them to ignore these provisions. For consecration or ordination of a Metropolitan the constitution provides for certain formalities to be complied with. Only if the Malankara Association considers and proposes the ordination of a Metropolitan the Catholicos or Patriarch can ordain a Metropolitan. If for any reason these high dignitaries consecrate a person as a Metropolitan, unless he is approved later by the Association he cannot function as a Metropolitan. Admittedly the defendant does not satisfy the requirements of this provision in the constitution. Therefore, the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case that the defendant cannot act as a Metropolitan. To this the answer of the defendant is that the 1st plaintiff has become an apostate for having ignored the Patriarch and throne of St. Peter on which the Patriarch is supposed to sit. He, it is said, has recognised a throne for St. Thomas. There is no material to prove that the 1st plaintiff has become an apostate. All persons who satisfy the qualifications prescribed in R.4 of Chap.1 of the constitution are members of the Malankara Church. In other words, the qualification for being a member of the Church is contained in R.4 and there is no material placed before the court to show that the 1st plaintiff has disqualified himself to be a member of the Sabha. Whether the 1st plaintiff has recognised a throne for St. Thomas, if so what is its consequence, and whether his recognition of the tradition or a historical fact of the visit of St. Thomas to South India in 52 A.D. and honouring him as a religious head as well will in any way go against the religious tenets of the Malankara church are all matters which may have to be properly pleaded and established and how far the court is competent to decide this question is also a matter which may arise for consideration during the trial stage. Prima facie there is nothing to show that the 1st plaintiff has become an apostate. Prima facie there is nothing to show that the 1st plaintiff has become an apostate. This allegation of apostasy is seen made whenever a quarrel arises between these groups, as can be seen from the previous litigations between the parties. It is not easy to declare a person a heretic and at any rate there is absolutely no material now even prima facie to hold that the 1st plaintiff has become one. Therefore, the court below is right In holding that the 1st plaintiff has established a prima facie case to restrain the defendant from exercising any of the powers as a Metropolitan. In the absence of a Metropolitan appointed for the diocese in question the powers of such a Metropolitan vest in the Malankara Metropolitan namely the 1st plaintiff. As per the R. 1st plaintiff is competent to appoint or transfer or dismiss a Vicar or a priest. The defendant has been suspended from functioning as a Vicar. He is seen to have disobeyed the orders of the 1st plaintiff and prima facie 1st plaintiff was justified in removing him from the post of a Vicar. Maintenance of discipline in the Sabha is naturally a matter for concern and the action of the 1st plaintiff prima facie is not shown to be invalid. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from functioning as a Metropolitan or as a Vicar. 3. It was contended that under Art.25 and 26 of the constitution it is open to a section of a denomination to manage its own religious affairs and the grant of an injunction against the defendant will be indirectly taking away the freedom of the section to manage their affairs. We fail to see how these provisions of the constitution come into play here. Plaintiff and defendant belong to the same Malankara Sabha. The Sabha has got a constitution and provision is made in the constitution for management of the religious affairs. If one member violates the constitution the head or the Sabha is entitled to take such steps as are necessary to sustain the association and the discipline in the Sabha. These plaint churches are parts of the same Sabha and they have not gone out of it. So, they must be bound by the rules and regulations of the Sabha. If one member violates the constitution the head or the Sabha is entitled to take such steps as are necessary to sustain the association and the discipline in the Sabha. These plaint churches are parts of the same Sabha and they have not gone out of it. So, they must be bound by the rules and regulations of the Sabha. These Articles do not enable the defendant to say that the right of a section of the denomination to manage its own religious matters is denied. 4. One other point also remains to be considered. An objection is taken. that the petition for temporary injunction is filed by the 2nd plaintiff and he has no right as against the defendant for an injunction. 2nd plaintiff is stated to be an Assistant and the person elected to succeed as Malankara Metropolitan after the 1st plaintiff. No doubt, his election to succeed the 1st plaintiff by itself will not confer on him any right against the defendant. But, he has been impleaded in the suit under 0.1 R.12 CPC. and it is open to the 1st plaintiff to be bound by the conduct of the case by the other plaintiff. Any technical defect in the petition is cured by the affidavit filed by the 1st plaintiff stating that the petition filed by the 2nd plaintiff is for his own behalf and as per his direction. This is enough to give sufficient authority to the 2nd plaintiff to proceed with the petition. Hence, there is no point in this technical objection. 5. The order passed by the lower court allowing the two groups to conduct the religious services on alternate weeks in the church is not acceptable to. either. We find that such an arrangement will be against the constitution which prima facie binds the defendant. Defendant who has been removed from the post of a Vicar cannot be permitted to conduct the religious services. That will be in violation of the constitution and discipline which the members of the Sabha are expected to maintain. Therefore, C.M.A. N6.182/74 has to be and is dismissed and C.M.A. No. 164/74 has to be and is allowed by restraining the defendant from conducting religious services in any of the churches scheduled to the plaint until further orders. The C. M. Appeals are disposed of as above. The parties shall bear their costs.