JUDGMENT : T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. Both these appeals are filed against the judgment in O.S.No.43/2007 rendered by the Ist Additional District Court, Ernakulam. R.FA. No.589/2011 is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit and R.F.A. No.655/2011 is filed by defendants 13 and 15 and they are aggrieved by the dismissal of the counter claim filed by them. 2. We heard learned Senior Counsel Shri N. Sukumaran appearing for the appellants in R.F.A.No.589/2011 and learned Senior Counsel Shri K. Ramakumar appearing for the appellants in R.F.A.No.655/2011, Shri R.D. Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2, 5, 17 and 18 in R.F.A.No.589/2011 who are supporting the appellants, learned Senior Counsel Shri S. Sreekumar appearing for respondents 3 and 9 in R.F.A.No.589/2011 and respondents 6 and 12 in R.F.A.No.655/2011, learned Senior Counsel Shri T. Krishnanunni and Shri Paul Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing respectively for the respondents 10, 11 and 12 in R.F.A.No.589/2011 and respondents 13 and 14 in the other appeal. 3. Before going into the arguments of the respective counsel, we will extract the contentions of both sides in the plaint as well as in the written statements. 4. The controversy is between the two factions of parishioners of the first respondent Church, viz. St. Peter's and St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church, Kolencherry. The suit was filed by plaintiffs 1 to 3, arraying 12 defendants and additional defendants 13 to 16 have been subsequently impleaded. The first defendant is the Church represented by its Vicar who was arrayed as the second defendant (Patriarch faction) and the third defendant (Orthodox faction) is also a priest. The suit is one filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and leave has been granted by the Court. The plaintiffs sought the intervention of the court for having a proper administration of the Church which according to them, is a public trust of a religious nature. The plaint averments show the following: There were factional fights and prolonged litigations between the two factions of the parishioners of the first defendant Church and they are: (i) Orthodox faction, and (ii) Patriarch faction. At the time of filing of the suit, the two factions were conducting services in the Church in turns and the second defendant is the Vicar and the third defendant is the Priest offering services on behalf of Orthodox faction. At the time of filing of the suit, the two factions were conducting services in the Church in turns and the second defendant is the Vicar and the third defendant is the Priest offering services on behalf of Orthodox faction. Plaintiffs and defendants 2, 5 and 7 belong to the Patriarch faction and the other defendants are parishioners belonging to the Catholicos (Orthodox) faction. 5. It is averred in para 3 of the plaint that from the very beginning the affairs of the Church and its assets were being administered by a committee consisting of its Priests and parishioners. An Udampady was executed by the representatives of the Church in the year 1908 AD regarding the manner in which its affairs are to be administered. The same was superceded by another Udampady dated 13.12.1088 ME (corresponding to the year 1913). As per the Udampady of 1913, provisions were made for the priests to render service in turn and the trustees to administer the affairs of the Church. Five priests and 16 lay trustees were parties to the Udampady. It is averred that the first defendant Church was being administered all along as per the said Udampady. There arose factional fights which resulted in closure of the Church and 0. S.No. 19/1980 was instituted by the Orthodox faction. A receiver was appointed to manage the assets of the Church and the suit was finally dismissed as per judgment dated 27.2.1997 as no leave was obtained. The court directed the receiver to hand over possession of the assets to the survivors among the defendants in that case. 6. The first plaintiff and defendants 4 to 9 were also parties to the said suit and the first defendant was the 8 the defendant therein. According to the plaintiffs, the survivors among defendants I to 18 in O.S.No.19/1980 who were the elected committee members met on 9.3.1987 and unanimously authorised the first plaintiff and one Shri Cheria Pathrose who was the first defendant in the said suit (since deceased) to take charge of the assets of the Church from the receiver. According to the plaintiffs, the receiver handed over the keys of the Church to the first plaintiff and the first defendant in O.S.No.19/1980. During the pendency of the suit O.S.No.19/1980 the services in the Church were being rendered by the two factions in turns. One Fr. According to the plaintiffs, the receiver handed over the keys of the Church to the first plaintiff and the first defendant in O.S.No.19/1980. During the pendency of the suit O.S.No.19/1980 the services in the Church were being rendered by the two factions in turns. One Fr. E.P. Zacharia was performing the services on behalf of Patriarch faction, but he was transferred by the Metropolitan of the Orthodox faction. This resulted in protests from the Patriarch faction and law and order problems arose and the Church was closed by the Executive First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha. Several litigations followed, between the parties. The Church was closed in the year 1998. Later, a consensus was arrived at before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and the Church was opened and services were to be undertaken in turn by priests of both factions. 7. The Orthodox faction challenged the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer in W.P.(C) NO.20938/2005. Therein, the first plaintiff and the fourth defendant got impleaded themselves as additional respondents 5 and 6. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 9.12.2005 directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate to return the key of the Church to one Fr. M.V. Abraham. The judgment was challenged in WA.No.47/2006 by additional respondents 5 and 6. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 8.12.2006 disposed of the appeal with a direction that the key of the Church will remain with the Sub Divisional Magistrate for 15 days with a further direction that thereafter the matter will abide by the orders of the civil court in a suit that may be filed by the appellants in the appeal within 15 days. One of the appellants in the appeal, viz. the fourth defendant in the present suit did not co-operate with the plaintiffs and thus he is arrayed as a defendant in the present suit. 8. It was pleaded that the first defendant Church and its assets and affairs are to be administered as per the Udampady dated 13.12.1088 ME, registered as No.31 of 1088 ME at the Sub Registrar's Office, Aikkaranadu. There are certain educational institutions for which the governing body will have to be elected also. 8. It was pleaded that the first defendant Church and its assets and affairs are to be administered as per the Udampady dated 13.12.1088 ME, registered as No.31 of 1088 ME at the Sub Registrar's Office, Aikkaranadu. There are certain educational institutions for which the governing body will have to be elected also. There are 2500 families and around 10000 parishioners under the first defendant Church and an uptodate membership register has to be drawn up and an election will have to be conducted to the managing committee of the Church and that a governing body and Manager of the educational institutions has also to be elected. It was pleaded in para 16 of the plaint that the first defendant Church has not accepted the 1934 Constitution and the Church is to be governed by the Udampady of 1088 ME. It was further pleaded that defendants 3, 10 and 11 have no right to collect the key from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha. Accordingly, the plaintiffs prayed for various reliefs. 9. The main relief (a) is to declare that the first defendant Church, its assets including the educational institutions are liable to be administered only in accordance with the terms of the Udampady dated 13.12.1088 ME. The alternate relief sought for under relief (b) is to settle a scheme for the administration of the first defendant Church, its assets and institutions. They have also sought for appointment of a receiver during the pendency of the suit, to conduct an election with the receiver in charge after preparing a proper voters list irrespective of the factional affiliations of the parishioners and to entrust the management to them. Finally, a permanent injunction is also sought, restraining the third defendant, his agents, men and servants from receiving the key of the Church building from the Executive First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha. 10. Written statements have been filed by defendants 1, 3 and 9, and separate written statements by defendants 1, 2 and 5 and also by additional defendants 13 ad 15. 11. The averments in the written statement filed by defendants 1, 3 and 9 who represented the Catholicos (Orthodox) faction show the following: According to them, the suit is not maintainable. It was mainly contended that the Udampady of 1088 ME ceased to exist after the meeting of Malankara Association in 1934 and framing of a Constitution on 26.12.1934. 11. The averments in the written statement filed by defendants 1, 3 and 9 who represented the Catholicos (Orthodox) faction show the following: According to them, the suit is not maintainable. It was mainly contended that the Udampady of 1088 ME ceased to exist after the meeting of Malankara Association in 1934 and framing of a Constitution on 26.12.1934. In the light of clause 132 of 1934 Constitution, all Udampadies inconsistent with the provisions of 1934 Constitution will be void. The said Constitution governs the Church and the Church was being administered in accordance with the provisions of the same. After the dispute between the two factions of the Church, viz. Patriarch and Orthodox was finally decided by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. TP. Avira and others, 1958 KLT 721 : AIR 1959 SC 31 , peace and tranquillity prevailed in the Church and there was harmony and unification. One Vicar and two priests were appointed, by the Diocesan Metropolitan in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. The Church came originally under the Kandanad Diocese. As per Kalpana No.20/59 dated 20.2.1959 of the Diocesan Metropolitan, the annual general body meeting of the Parish assembly was held on 8.3.1959. It was presided over by the then Diocesan Metropolitan of Catholicose group Augen Mar Thimothiose and in the presence of Paulose Mar Philixinose, the then Diocesan Asst. Metropolitan. The Parish assembly unanimously resolved to adopt and accept 1934 Constitution to the first respondent Church. After the said Parish assembly, the first respondent Church was being administered under the 1934 Constitution, apart from the educational institutions. 12. Para 4 of the written statement gives the details of 15 members of the managing committee of the first defendant Church who were elected in the Parish assembly held on 16.12.1973. At that time the limits of Parish Church was divided into wards. The Parish assembly used to send its representatives to the Malankara Association, lastly on 5.5.1974. 13. After disputes arose between the two factions O.S.No.19/1980 was filed and a receiver was appointed which was ultimately dismissed by judgment dated 27.2.1997. The administration and management of the Church was entrusted to the managing committee members who were alive at that time and were elected by the Parish assembly in accordance with 1934 Constitution, in its meeting held on 16.12.1973. The administration and management of the Church was entrusted to the managing committee members who were alive at that time and were elected by the Parish assembly in accordance with 1934 Constitution, in its meeting held on 16.12.1973. The judgment in O.S.No.19/1980 became final after the dismissal of A.S.No.304/1997 by this Court on 9.1.2001. 14. Para 6 of the written statement details certain other disputes which arose after Fr. E.P. Zacharia was transferred by the Diocesan Metropolitan on 31.3.1998. Fr. E.P. Zacharia filed O.S. No.340/1997 before the Munsiffs Court, Perumbavoor and an application for temporary injunction was also filed as I.A. No.1646/1997 which was dismissed. Two parishioners filed a suit as O.S.No.31/1998 against Fr. E.P. Zacharia before the Addl. District Court, Ernakulam. An interim injunction was granted on 21.12.1998 finding that the Church is being administered under the 1934 Constitution and the Diocesan Metropolitan is competent to transfer Fr. E.P. Zacharia. C.M.A.No.345/1998 was dismissed by this Court and S.L.P. (C) No.9141/2000 filed against the said judgment was dismissed by the Apex Court. Later, Fr. M.V. Abraham was appointed as Vicar by the Diocesan Metropolitan, when Fr. O.I Paulose expired. It is contended that all these developments will show that the Church was being administered by 1934 Constitution and is a constituent of Malankara Church. The Constitution was once again upheld in P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma and others, AIR 1995 SC 2001 . The Kandanadu Diocese was divided into two for administrative purposes, after the election to the Malankara Association was conducted as per the decision of the Apex Court, in 2002 as Kandanadu East and West and the first defendant Church comes under Kandanadu West of which Dr. Mathews Mar Sevarious was appointed as Metropolitan. 15. It is contended that due to unruly situation created by the Patriarch faction, the Sub Divisional Magistrate invoked Section 144(1) of the Cr.P.C. and by an order dated 11.7.2005 the Church was closed. He took the key also which was challenged in W.P(C) No.20938/2005. The proceedings of the Sub Divisional Magistrate was quashed therein, after finding that the Church was being administered under 1934 Constitution and the key was directed to be handed over to Fr M.V. Abraham, the then Vicar. By that time Fr. M.V. Abraham retired and the third defendant in the present suit was appointed as Vicar in his place. But the keys were handed over to Fr. By that time Fr. M.V. Abraham retired and the third defendant in the present suit was appointed as Vicar in his place. But the keys were handed over to Fr. M.V. Abraham and I.A. No.18406/2005 was filed for a direction to Fr. M.V. Abraham to hand over the keys to the third defendant which was allowed by this Court by order dated 15.12.2005 directing Fr. M.V. Abraham to hand over the key to the Sub Divisional Magistrate who was, in turn, directed to keep the Church open every day. W.A. No.47/2006 filed against the said judgment, was dismissed as withdrawn and 15 days time was granted to file a civil suit. But since no suit was filed, R.P.No.563/2007 was filed before this Court and by the time the review petition was heard, the suit was filed and this Court directed the trial court to pass appropriate interim orders. It was contended that after the receiver was. discharged pursuant to the dismissal of the suit O.S.No.19/1980, upto 11.7.2005 when the Church was closed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the trustees elected in accordance with the 1934 Constitution have been managing the Church. In para 13, the details of election of managing committee on 25.3.2007 have been averred and it is contended that there is proper administration of the Church. In para 14, it is pointed out that the plaintiffs have deviated from the Malankara Orthodox Syrian faith and have jointed a new Sabha called Yacobaya Suriyani Christiani Association formed in the year 2002 and that they have no subsisting interest in the first defendant Church. It is contended that the second defendant is not the Vicar of the Church and the third defendant is the lawful Vicar of the Church appointed by the Diocesan Metropolitan. The plaintiffs and defendants 2, 5 and 7 belong to Patriarch faction and have no right or authority over the first defendant Church. These are the main contentions raised in the written statement filed by defendants 1, 3 and 9. 16. In the joint written statement filed by defendants 1, 2 and 5 they supported the plea of the plaintiffs and contended that the Church and its assets will have to be administered according to the will, pleasure and faith of the majority. 17. 16. In the joint written statement filed by defendants 1, 2 and 5 they supported the plea of the plaintiffs and contended that the Church and its assets will have to be administered according to the will, pleasure and faith of the majority. 17. In the written statement filed by defendants 13 and 15 also, they are relying upon the Udambady of 1088 M.E. It is contended that the administration of the Church and its assets were strictly being conducted as per the provisions of the said Udambady. It is also contended that the formation of 1934 Constitution did not affect the activities of the Church. Reference is made to the eruption of dispute in the year 1972-197 between the two factions in Malankara Association which had spread into the fir, 9 defendant Church and it is also contended that the parishioners continued enblock ww id' the Patriarch of Antioch. They prayed for conducting an election according to the will of the majority of the parishioners. It is contended that the Orthodox faction is not accepting the verdict of the Apex Court to the effect that Patriarch of Antioch is 11-, Supreme Spiritual Head of Universal Orthodox Syrian Churches. In para 16 of h written statement defendants 13 and 15 sought for passing of a preliminary decree: (1, cause a referendum to ascertain the allegiance of the parishioners of the plaint Church.' (ii) to declare that the plaint Church and its assets are to be governed in accordance with the faith and will professed by the majority of the parishioners of the plaint schedule Church, (iii) to pass a final decree declaring that the plaint Church and its assets are to be administered in accordance with the decision of the majority of the parishioners, and (iv) to issue a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the third defendant, his men or agents and the religious dignitaries those who are not accepting the spiritual supremacy of Patriarch of Antioch and All the East. Court fee has been paid on the counter claim also. 18. During the pendency of the suit, a common order was passed by the trial court in I.A. Nos. 3868/2007 and 3984/20 10 and, on 2.12.2010. Court fee has been paid on the counter claim also. 18. During the pendency of the suit, a common order was passed by the trial court in I.A. Nos. 3868/2007 and 3984/20 10 and, on 2.12.2010. I.A. NO.3868/2007 was one filed by the plaintiffs for appointment of a receiver and I.A.No.3984/2010 was filed by defendants 1, 3 and 9 for a direction to hand over the keys of the first defendant Church to the third defendant. The trial court dismissed I.A. No.3868/2007 and allowed I.A. No.3984/2010 and held that the third defendant is entitled to get the key of the first defendant Church. F.A.O.Nos.393/2010 and 127/2011 and O.P.(C) No.1134/2010 filed by various parties have been disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 24.5.2011 directing the trial court to expedite the trial of the suit. 19. Both the parties have adduced evidence. P.Ws. I and 2 have been examined on the side of the plaintiffs and Exts.AI to A7 have been marked. D.Ws. I to 3 have been examined on the side of the defendants and Exts.B 1 to B26 have been marked. The court below framed six issues for trial. 20. By the impugned judgment, it was held that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case, AIR 1995 SC 2001 declaring that 1934 Constitution is valid, the plaintiff and other supporting defendants are not entitled for any reliefs. It was held that the dictum laid down in the above decision will squarely apply to the affairs of the first defendant Church. It was also held by the court below that since the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 took the stand that they do not accept the 1934 Constitution, they are not entitled to get a declaration that the first defendant Church is to be governed as per the Udambady of 1088 ME, marked as Ext.A 1. The suit and the counter claim have thus been dismissed and the order in I.A. No.3984/2010 finding that the third defendant is entitled to get the keys of the Church, was confirmed. 21. Ext.A 1 is the certified copy of the registered Udampady dated 13.12.1088 ME. The suit and the counter claim have thus been dismissed and the order in I.A. No.3984/2010 finding that the third defendant is entitled to get the keys of the Church, was confirmed. 21. Ext.A 1 is the certified copy of the registered Udampady dated 13.12.1088 ME. The other exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiffs are Exts.A2 to A7 which are respectively the copy of the judgment in O.S. No.19/1980 (Ext.A2), copy of the resolution of the first defendant Church dated 9.3.1997 (Ext.A3), copy of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.20938/2005 (Ext.A4), certified copy of the judgment in W.A. No.47/2006 (Ext.A5), copy of the Constitution of the school belonging to the first defendant Church passed on 23.10.1963 (Ext.A6) and copy of the judgment in O.S. No.30/1997 of the Ist Addl. District Court, Ernakulam (Ext.A7). 22. Since elaborate arguments have been raised by the learned Senior Counsel on both sides, we will now refer to the main arguments raised by the respective learned Senior Counsel. 23. Opening the arguments in R.F.A. No.589/2011, learned Senior Counsel Shri N. Sukumaran submitted that the Udambady of 1088 ME (corresponding to the year 1913) cannot be disputed by the defendants and the Church was being administered under the said Udambady. There is no resolution in 1959, adopting 1934 Constitution. In the first defendant Church the committee elected under the said Udambady was in management and it was not being administered under the 1934 Constitution. O.S. No.19/1980 was filed by the Orthodox faction, but no leave was granted by the court and the suit was dismissed. When the said suit was filed, three priests were there, out of which one remained in the Patriarch faction and all the three were performing services in turn. Learned Senior Counsel narrated the developments upto the filing of the present suit. After the trial court passed interim order in I.A. No.3984/2010 the Church was opened on 3.12.2010 and the service was being rendered in turn. It is also submitted that the suit is filed under 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. and leave was also granted under Section 92 of the C.P.C. which order also stands confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.803/2007. 24. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that there cannot be a dispute that at least upto 1959 the Church was being administered under Ext.A1 Udambady. 24. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that there cannot be a dispute that at least upto 1959 the Church was being administered under Ext.A1 Udambady. It is submitted that Ext.B2(a) produced in support of the plea of the third defendant and others that a resolution was taken on 8.3.1959 to show acceptance of the 1934 Constitution, is not properly proved as it is only a photo copy produced in O.S. No.19/1980. Therefore, as Exts.B2 and B2(a) are not admissible in evidence, there is no evidence regarding acceptance of 1934 Constitution by the parishioners and the Church continued to be governed by the Udambady of 1913. It is submitted by referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos's case, AIR 1959 SC 31 and P.M.A. Metropolitan's case, AIR 1995 SC 2001 that the scope of the suits therein was totally different. It is submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case, AIR 1995 SC 2001 consists of two parts, viz. part I, upto para 83 which is a minority judgment by Hon'ble R.M. Sahai, J. and from para 83 onwards is the majority judgment rendered by Hon'ble Jeevan Reddy, J. Our attention was invited to the relevant paragraphs of the judgments of Hon'ble Sahai J. and Hon'ble Jeevan Reddy, J. Learned Senior Counsel emphasised the fact that the finding by the majority judgment will show that the view taken is that the parish Churches being not individually parties, a decision on temporal matters can be taken only after hearing them and no declaration can be granted also. It is therefore submitted that as far as individual Parish churches are concerned, they may have their own Constitution. It is therefore submitted that as far as individual Parish churches are concerned, they may have their own Constitution. Learned Senior Counsel therefore contended that the relevant findings in the majority judgment as well as later judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Moran Mar Baselious Marthoma Mathews II v. State of Kerala, 2003 (1) KLT 780 will support the contention of the plaintiffs that all matters raised in the present suit will have to be considered in detail and therefore the view of the trial court herein in para 15, by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case, AIR 1995 SC 2001 that the principles stated therein as well as the finding on the validity of the 1934 Constitution will squarely apply here, is not correct. 25. Learned Senior Counsel Shri N. Sukumaran therefore submitted that with regard to the affairs of the first respondent Church, a proper election will have to be held, especially since after the present dispute arose, both parties are conducting services in their turn, the parishioners will have to be given the right to decide as to the manner of conduct of prayers, who will have to conduct it and related aspects with regard to the administration of the property of the Church also. It is finally submitted that the view taken by the trial court in paragraphs 14 and 15 will not be correct in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in Moran Mar Baselious Marthoma Mathews 11, 2003 (1) KLT 780 . It is also submitted that a scheme can be framed by the court after finding that the 1934 Constitution is not applicable to the first respondent Church. Learned Senior Counsel explained the history of the litigation's between the two factions from 1879 onwards and submitted that the scope of those suits and the decisions thereon will not go against the pleas of the plaintiffs/appellants in the present suit. It is submitted that the supremacy of Patriarch in spiritual matters will have to be accepted by the rival faction. 26. Shri K. Ramakumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in R.F.A. No.655/2011 attacked the findings of the trial court with regard to the applicability of 1934 Constitution. It is submitted that the supremacy of Patriarch in spiritual matters will have to be accepted by the rival faction. 26. Shri K. Ramakumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in R.F.A. No.655/2011 attacked the findings of the trial court with regard to the applicability of 1934 Constitution. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Moran Mar Baselious Marthoma Mathews II, 2003 (1) KLT 780 and the findings therein that the decision of the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case, AIR 1995 SC 2001 will not apply to individual Parish Churches. It is submitted that the parishioners will have to be given the right to choose as to the manner of conduct of prayers, who shall conduct it and the manner of administration of the affairs of the Church. It is submitted that the court below was not right in dismissing the cross objection. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that only after conduct of a referendum the views of the majority of the parishioners can be obtained and a proper election can be conducted thereafter with a proper and valid voters list for which a scheme will have to be framed by the court. It is also submitted that the trial court went wrong in not framing an issue on the relief sought for by the appellants in R.FA. No.655/011. 27. Learned Senior Counsel Shri R.D. Shenoy appearing for respondents I and 13 to 15 in R.F.A. No.589/2011 supported the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel Shri N. Sukumaran. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the decision of the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case, AIR 1995 SC 2001 was misapplied by the trial court. Our attention was invited to the various findings in the majority judgment as well as the factual position with respect to the previous litigation between the two factions. It is submitted that the narration of the history of the litigation's prior to the decision of the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case, AIR 1995 SC 2001 will show that the decision of the Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos's case, AIR 1959 SC 31 in the. well-known suit known as "Samudayam Suit" governed only the 'samudayam' properties and not of individual Church properties. well-known suit known as "Samudayam Suit" governed only the 'samudayam' properties and not of individual Church properties. The finding that the Metropolitan is the trustee of the Church properties, will apply only to the 'samudayam' properties. While referring to the scope of the suits which culminated in the judgment of the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case, AIR 1995 SC 2001 , learned Senior Counsel referred to paragraphs 129 to 132 and 134 to 147 of the said judgment. It is submitted that the reliefs sought for in O.S. No.4/1979 were only confined to certain aspects. It is submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case, AIR 1995 SC 2001 will show that the supreme spiritual power of the Patriarch has been recognised. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that a scheme has to be framed in respect of the first respondent Church in tune with the spirit of the judgment in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case (supra) and other judgments. Our attention was invited to para 141 of the judgment of the Apex Court. It is submitted that the majority was of the view that no declaration can be granted affecting the rights of the Parish Churches in their absence. It is submitted that the same is significant. Learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the declaration by the Apex Court is only in connection with the episcopal nature of the Church and the trial court went wrong in holding that the said judgment will apply to the Parish Church herein. It cannot be said that the said judgment will apply to the scheme for management of individual Churches. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Kerala Ayurveda Vydyasala Ltd. v. Pandara Valappil Kallanai and another, JT 1999 (4) SC 594 and Arun Kumar Aggarwal v. State of M.P and others, AIR 2011 SC 3056 that the observations in the minority judgment of Hon'ble R.M. Sahai, J. cannot be said to be the ratio decidendi. Learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in S.R. Bommai and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1994 SC 1918 , especially paragraphs 114 to 116 to contend that a proper election is fundamental to the democracy. Therefore, the faith of the parishioners will have to be assessed and a scheme will have to be framed accordingly. Therefore, the faith of the parishioners will have to be assessed and a scheme will have to be framed accordingly. It is submitted that the Catholicos faction now does not accept the spiritual supremacy of the patriarch which is not correct also. 28. The above contentions were answered by Shri S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 9 in R.F.A. No.589/2011 who are respondents 6 and 12 in the other appeal, representing Catholicos faction. While tracing out the history of the disputes between the two factions, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos's case, AIR 1959 SC 31 upheld the validity of 1934 Constitution. The said judgment will show that the 1934 Constitution was adopted validly and the meeting of the Malankara Association was also declared as properly held. It is submitted that the suit which ultimately reached the Apex Court, was filed on behalf of all the members of the Church. It is submitted that as the meeting was held as a valid one with proper and sufficient notice to the Parish churches, the 1934 Constitution was validly adopted. 29. While coming to the background of the disputes which were finally decided by the Apex Court in PM.A. Metropolitan's case, AIR 1995 SC 2001 , learned Senior Counsel submitted that after 1959 upto 1974 peace prevailed in the entire Malankara Church and both factions were united. To explain the above, learned Senior Counsel relied upon paragraphs 107 and 108 of the judgment in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case (supra). It is submitted that after the said unity was achieved, various re-allotments were made even in respect of Dioceses and the 1934 Constitution was also decided to be implemented. 30. Learned Senior Counsel, in this context, referred to the details of Ext.B I Constitution (1934 Constitution) which contains separate provisions with regard to the meetings of bodies of Parish churches, Diocese and Malankara Association. It is submitted that clause 132 is important which will show that other Udambadies which are inconsistent with the provisions of 1934 Constitution, will stand cancelled. To bolster upon his arguments, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Moran Mar Baseliose Marthoma Mathews I v. Most Rev. It is submitted that clause 132 is important which will show that other Udambadies which are inconsistent with the provisions of 1934 Constitution, will stand cancelled. To bolster upon his arguments, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Moran Mar Baseliose Marthoma Mathews I v. Most Rev. Poulose Mar Athansios, 1990 (2) KLT Supplement from which the appeal reached the Apex Court and was disposed of in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case (supra). It is submitted that the Division Bench also held, after referring to the decision in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos's case, AIR 1959 SC 31 and other factual aspects, that the 1934 Constitution was validly adopted. It was held that the Constitution is binding on individual churches also and all the churches had participated in the deliberations of framing 1934 Constitution. Learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the attempt of the appellants is to raise the very same issues which have been concluded by the findings of the Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos's case, AIR 1959 SC 31 and P.M.A. Metropolitan's case, AIR 6 1995 SC 2001. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon various findings of Hon'ble R.M. Sahai, J. and Hon'ble Jeevan Reddy, J. in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case (supra) to contend that the plea raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the principles stated therein have no application to individual Parish churches, cannot hold good. By referring to para 145 of the judgment and the further directions issued by the Apex Court in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma Mathews and another, AIR 1996 SC 3121 and Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma Mathews and another, AIR 1997 SC 1034 with regard to the amendment of clauses 46 and 71 of 1934 Constitution, learned Senior Counsel submitted that those amendments also having been validly adopted, no argument can be raised now that 1934 Constitution will not apply and was not accepted by the first defendant Church. It is submitted that the Apex Court in the subsequent' judgment in Moran Mar Thoma Mathews v. Most Rev. Thomas Mar. D. Metropolitan, 2002 (1) KLT 125 SC directed the conduct of election to the Malankara Association and appointed the former Chief Justice of this Court, Justice V.S. Malimath as Observer. Actually the Patriarch faction boycotted the same. It is submitted that the Apex Court in the subsequent' judgment in Moran Mar Thoma Mathews v. Most Rev. Thomas Mar. D. Metropolitan, 2002 (1) KLT 125 SC directed the conduct of election to the Malankara Association and appointed the former Chief Justice of this Court, Justice V.S. Malimath as Observer. Actually the Patriarch faction boycotted the same. The meeting was held on 20.3.2002 and the representative of the first defendant Church also attended the same as is clear from the attendance register (Ext.B 13). It is submitted that after the report of the Observer was accepted by the Apex Court, it was directed that nobody can challenge the election also. The Patriarch faction had formed a separate association and the plaintiffs being supporters of the said faction, cannot now turn round and try to get a scheme framed for the Parish Church herein. Herein also, the patriarch faction has established a separate Church in the same locality. 31. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is no evidence on the part of the plaintiffs to show that Ext.A I Udambady was implemented. Our attention was invited to the documents produced by defendants 1, 3 and viz. Ext.B2 onwards as well as various decisions of the general body meeting held from time to time contained in Ext.B4. It is submitted that the resolution dated 8.3.1959 adopted by the Parish assembly of the first respondent Church accepted the 1934 Constitution which has not been impugned in the suit. It is also submitted that the resolutions recorded in various pages of Ext.B4 will show that in terms of the procedure contemplated in Ext.B 1, elections have been held with 15 member managing committee, for various years. It is also stated that time to time elections have been held to the managing committee, and to send representatives to the Bhadrasana Council and the like. Thus, it is submitted that the acceptance of 1934 Constitution being a proved fact, it cannot be denied by the appellants and the said committees were in office from time to time which will be clear from the deliberations of the various meetings and recorded' in the minutes. 32. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that no evidence has been produced by the plaintiffs to show that Ext.Al Udambady was accepted and was in operation upto 1959 or even thereafter. 32. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that no evidence has been produced by the plaintiffs to show that Ext.Al Udambady was accepted and was in operation upto 1959 or even thereafter. At any rate, they cannot contend otherwise in the light of the fact that after 1959 and upto 1974, unity prevailed in the entire Malankara Church including the Parish Church herein and therefore Patriarch faction cannot be heard to say that they have not accepted the 1934 Constitution. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the last of the election was held on 16.12.1973 which is clear from page 23 of Ext.B5 and the meeting held on 4.8.1974 recorded in page 35 will show that the said meeting was disrupted. The above will show that fresh disputes arose in the entire Malankara Church during 1974 and that had reflection in the Parish Church herein also. After the receiver continued from 1980 to 1997, the keys were handed over to defendants 1 and 8 in O.S. No.19/1980 and Ext.B8 will show that they had declared allegiance to the 1934 Constitution to get the benefit of status quo ordered by the Apex Court. It is explained that the documents produced by the respondents will show that from time to time Diocesan Metropolitan has been taking actions with regard to the Parish Church. Even the attempt made by one of the priests who was transferred by the Diocesan Metropolitan to get the order of injunction, did not succeed and finally in a suit, O.S. No.31/1998 filed by two parishioners the injunction sought against Fr. E.P. Zacharia was granted and C.M.A. No.345/1998 filed was dismissed as per Ext.B 11 judgment. It is submitted that the orders above will show that the courts have taken the view that the Church is governed by 1934 Constitution and therefore the Metropolitan has power to transfer the said priest. O.S. No.31/ 1998 was finally withdrawn also. 33. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that after the elections were held in Malankara Association of the Metropolitan, it was declared by the Apex Court that the decision will be binding and is not liable to challenge and thereafter nobody has got a right to challenge it also. The Diocese was divided into two, viz. Kandanadu West and Kandanadu East and the Church comes under Diocesan Metropolitan Mathews Mar Savarious. 34. The Diocese was divided into two, viz. Kandanadu West and Kandanadu East and the Church comes under Diocesan Metropolitan Mathews Mar Savarious. 34. It is submitted therefore that the attempt made by the plaintiffs to file the suit is only to delay the taking over charge of the Church by accepting the key from the Revenue Divisional Officer by the third defendant and others. Our attention was invited in this context, to the history of the litigation between two factions from 1879 onwards, culminating in the judgment in P.M.A. Metropolitans case, AIR 1995 SC 2001 . It is submitted that the interpretation of the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs and supporting defendants, Shri N. Sukumaran and Shri R.D. Shenoy that the affairs of the Parish churches were not considered by the Apex Court, may not be correct in the light of the findings recorded in paragraphs 76 and 142 of the judgment, upholding 1934 Constitution and its applicability to Parish churches. Our attention was invited to the oral evidence of P.W.1 to show that he had no intimate knowledge about the happenings in the Church and the evidence will not indicate any element of administration of the Church as per Ext.Al Udambady. It is submitted that the reliance placed on the observations in Moran Mar Baselious Marthoma Mathews II, 2003 (1) KLT 780 is not correct in the light of the fact that the said judgment was reversed by the Apex Court in Moran Mar Baselios Marthoma Mathews II v. State of Kerala, 2007 (3) KLT 349. Reference is also made to the observations in Basselios Thomas I Catholicos v. Thomas Mar Athanasius, 2003 (1) KLT 10 to contend that the plaintiffs are estopped from raising any arguments, against the conclusive findings in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case (supra). It is submitted that since the 1934 Constitution is held as valid and was accepted by the Parish Church, viz. the first respondent herein, there is no question of conducting election in the manner sought for by the appellants in R.F.A. No.655/2011 based on their counter claim or by framing a scheme. 35. It is submitted that since the 1934 Constitution is held as valid and was accepted by the Parish Church, viz. the first respondent herein, there is no question of conducting election in the manner sought for by the appellants in R.F.A. No.655/2011 based on their counter claim or by framing a scheme. 35. Shri Paul Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing for the 12th respondent in R.F.A.No.589/2011 who is the 15th respondent in the other appeal, supported the arguments raised by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri S. Sreekumar and submitted by referring to the judgment in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case (supra) that the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot hold good. According to the learned counsel, there is no patriarch faction now and the present plaintiffs and supporting defendants cannot raise a claim as belonging to patriarch faction, after the election was duly conducted by the Observer appointed by the Apex Court. As far as the finding regarding episcopal authority, the learned counsel submitted that the extent of episcopal authority as contained in Ext.B1, viz. 1934 Constitution will apply to the first defendant Church also. It is submitted that the clauses of Ext.B 1 will show that there is a three tier system of democratic functioning with devolution of powers and supervisory powers to various higher functionaries. It is submitted that after the election was conducted based on the judgment of the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case, AIR 1995 SC 2001 , no amount of argument can be raised that there are two factions now. Patriarch faction had taken certain decisions without the knowledge of Catholicos which is against 1934 Constitution. 36. Learned counsel therefore submitted that Ext.A 1 Udambady no longer survives in the light of clause 132 of Ext.B 1 and all the clauses in Ext.B 1 will prevail. Clause 129 gives power to frame bye-laws not inconsistent with the Constitution. If at all the plaintiffs have got a grievance they can only approach the forum provided as per the clauses in Ext.B 1 and cannot insist for settling a scheme. Shri Paul Kuriakose also referred to the various findings in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case (supra) in support of his contention. Shri T. Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel, supported the arguments of learned Senior Counsel, Shri S. Sreekumar. 37. Shri Paul Kuriakose also referred to the various findings in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case (supra) in support of his contention. Shri T. Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel, supported the arguments of learned Senior Counsel, Shri S. Sreekumar. 37. Learned Senior Counsel Shri N. Sukumaran, Shri K. Ramakumar and Shri R.D. Shenoy replied to the above arguments by pointing out that the documents produced by defendants 1, 3 and 9 are not sufficient to establish that 1934 Constitution was accepted by the Church. Shri K. Ramakumar submitted that no issue has been framed by the trial Court with regard to the maintainability of the cross objection. He also referred to the decree passed by the Supreme Court in that context. It is therefore submitted that 1934 Constitution cannot be a pre condition for holding the election and the only alternative is to hold an election after framing a proper and valid voters list. Exts.B2 and B2(a), learned Senior Counsel submitted, are only photo copies which are not acceptable in evidence. 38. Shri N. Sukumaran, learned Senior Counsel reiterated his contentions and relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in A.S. No.269/1960 with regard to Puthuppally Church to contend that as far as individual Parish churches are concerned, they are governed by their own separate bye laws and Udambady. It is therefore submitted that Ext.A 1 Udambady holds the field and the court will have to frame a scheme and conduct election based on a proper voters list. 39. Learned Senior Counsel Shri R.D. Shenoy further contended that the findings in the minority judgment and the decision of the Division Bench in Moran Mar Baseliose Marthoma Mathews I, 1990 (2) KLT Supplement cannot be relied upon by the defendants. In this context, learned Senior Counsel referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case (supra), especially paragraphs 61 and 63 (page 2043) and pages 2236 and 2247 of "Constitutional Law of India" by Shri H.M. Seervai, Third Edition and submitted that the minority view cannot be relied on since the views of the majority are clear and binding on various aspects. Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 633 and the Commentary on "Constitution of India", 5th Edn. Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 633 and the Commentary on "Constitution of India", 5th Edn. by Durga Das Basu, page 6036 to contend that the minority view as against majority view is of no avail. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel Shri R.D. Shenoy that Patriarch should be treated as supreme which is an article of faith and thus, learned Senior Counsel prays for passing a preliminary decree to frame a scheme. 40. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S. Sreekumar replied to the above arguments by referring to para 80 of the judgment of Hon'ble Sahai, J. He submitted that on all points except with regard to the direction by Hon'ble Jeevan Reddy, J. to amend certain provisions of the 1934 Constitution, there is agreement in the two judgments on all points and therefore it is not a case of a judgment being termed as a minority judgment. It is submitted that the reliance placed on the judgment in A.S. No.269/1960 is not correct and the findings are clearly against the conclusions arrived at by the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case (supra) (para 137). The said judgment, learned Senior Counsel submits, was relied upon before the Division Bench, but the Division Bench also dissented the judgment in A.S.No.269/1960 which is clear from para 80 of the judgment in Moran Mar Base/ ose Marthoma Mathews !, 1990 (2) KLT Supplement. 41. Finally, learned Senior Counsel submitted that as the validity of 1934 Constitution has been upheld and an election has been held, now no dissent can be made and the law declared by the Apex Court is binding on everybody in the light of Article 141(1) of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that what is sought for in the suit is only a relief regarding administration of the affairs of the Church and no relief is sought in respect of the properties of the Church. It is submitted that the properties of the Church are vested in the endowment and a scheme has to be framed only if there is a mismanagement and now there are no such allegations also. It is submitted that the spiritual powers of Patriarch have been accepted by the Catholicos faction to the extent as provided in the 1934 Constitution. 42. It is submitted that the spiritual powers of Patriarch have been accepted by the Catholicos faction to the extent as provided in the 1934 Constitution. 42. The following main points arise for consideration: (a) Whether Ext.A I Udambady holds the field as far as the affairs of the first respondent Church and the alternate prayer to frame a scheme is sustainable, and (b) Whether the 1934 Constitution will govern the affairs of the first respondent Church and whether the same has been accepted and implemented already, as contended by defendants 1, 3 and 9. 43. Point No.1: Ext.A I is a document of the year 1088 M E. The parties to the said Udambady are five priests and lay trustees numbering 16. There is a declaration that they are coming under the Patriarch of Antioch. Observance is also offered to the kalpanas and directions of the then Patriarch of Antioch Abdoloho I1 @ Moren Mar Ignathios Patriarch and to the Malankara Metropolitan ordained by the Patriarch who has also been appointed as the President of the Association as well as Metropolitan of Kandanadu Diocese, viz. Mar Kurilose Metropolitan. The main clauses contain the turns by which four priests (except the senior most priest who, because of advanced age, was unable to perform his duties) as well as sixteen kykars should perform the functions. 44. Ext.A I is produced through P.W. 1. The stand taken in para 5 of the proof affidavit is that the committee elected as per 1913 Udambady (Ext.Al) was in administration of the Church when factional fights resulting in closure of the Church erupted. Except Ext.A 1 no other records and documents have been produced by the plaintiffs in support of the plea of implementation of the Udambady of 1913 upto the date of closure of the Church, i.e. even after 1959 and upto 1980. In the plaint or in the proof affidavit no details of the elections held from time to time, if any, have been furnished. In the cross examination of P.W.I who is the second plaintiff in the suit, he admits that near the first respondent Church, within a distance of 150 to 200 metres, a chappel has been constructed by Yakobaya Sabha (Patriarch faction) with the name St. Peters & St. Pauls Yakobaya Suriyani Church. In the cross examination of P.W.I who is the second plaintiff in the suit, he admits that near the first respondent Church, within a distance of 150 to 200 metres, a chappel has been constructed by Yakobaya Sabha (Patriarch faction) with the name St. Peters & St. Pauls Yakobaya Suriyani Church. According to him, he is having membership in the first respondent Church, but no documents are in his possession. To a question whether he has paid any yearly subscriptions, he admits that he has not paid any subscription. He do not know what was the dispute between the two factions within the Sabha, viz. Patriarch faction and Orthodox faction and do not know when the Patriarch fraction was formed. He do not know what is the decision of the Apex Court and whether after 1958 judgment of the Apex Court two factions were united. He plainly admits that he has not seen the bye-laws in respect of the first respondent Church or that a general body meeting was held as per the kalpana dated 20.2.1959. He plainly submitted that he is not aware whether the general body meeting held on 8.3.1959 had accepted the 1934 Constitution. He denied the suggestion that from 1959 onwards the Church was being administered under the 1934 Constitution. According to him, there is another Udambady of 918, but he has not read it and the information he got about it, is from the elders. With regard to the transfer of the Vicar, Fr. E.P. Zacharia and the appointment of Fr. John Thenittalil, he said that he is not aware about it. He also answered in the negative, to a question whether Fr. John Thenittalil was the priest of the Church at any time. He was asked whether he has heard about Yakobaya Suriyani Christian Association and about the new Constitution adopted by the Patriarch faction by in 2002. His answer is "no". According to him, he is not accepting the 1934 Constitution. He was asked whether he has seen any document to show that the Church was being administered as per Ext.Al and even though he answered "yes", it is explained that those documents are not in his possession and the whereabouts are also not known to him. According to him, the 1934 Constitution was not accepted in the Parish. 45. According to P.W.2, the last election was held on 16.12.1973. According to him, the 1934 Constitution was not accepted in the Parish. 45. According to P.W.2, the last election was held on 16.12.1973. In the cross examination he has deposed that he has not seen any document to show the conduct of management of the Church as per Ext.A 1 Udambady. According to him, he is not prepared to cooperate with the Vicar appointed as per 1934 Constitution and is prepared to co-operate with the Vicar appointed under the Patriarch of Antioch. He admitted that from 1959 to 1973 the affairs were managed jointly by both factions and he has been attending the Church during the said period. 46. We will refer to the portions of the depositions of other witnesses on these aspects, now. D.W. 1, the fifth defendant in the suit supported the plaintiffs and Ext.AI Udambady. According to him, the last election was held on 16.12.1973 and he was elected as a committee member and the Church is an independent trust and except Ext.A 1, there is no other Constitution governing it. To a question in the cross examination whether from 1959 to 1973 both factions were united, he answered that the administration was being done upto 1961 as per the understanding between Patriarch and Catholicos and he has been attending the Church during these period. Going by the deposition of D.W.1, the last election was held on 16.12.1973. D.W2 is the 15th defendant, who in the proof affidavit, stated that Ext.A 1 Udambady governed the Church. The last election was held on 16.12.1973. The views of the majority should he ascertained and an election will have to be conducted. He deposed in cross examination that he is prepared to act as per the Supreme Court and High Court judgments and to confess before the Vicar appointed under the 1934 Constitution and that he do not belong to any faction. He has no objection to conduct election as per the 1934 Constitution. 47. We will have to consider whether the assertion by the plaintiffs/ appellants that the affairs of the Church were being managed as per Ext.A 1 Udambady is correct or not. The year corresponding to 1088 ME is 1913. He has no objection to conduct election as per the 1934 Constitution. 47. We will have to consider whether the assertion by the plaintiffs/ appellants that the affairs of the Church were being managed as per Ext.A 1 Udambady is correct or not. The year corresponding to 1088 ME is 1913. The significance of the findings in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos's case, 1958 KLT 721 AIR 1959 SC 31 with regard to certain aspects, is highlighted by Shri S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, to submit that the said Udambady did not survive for long. The averments in para 2 of the plaint, while explaining the affairs in the Church, emphasise the fact that there were two factions in the entire Church, viz. Patriarchs and Catholicos, as generally understood. 48. Going by the history of the struggle for supremacy in the affairs of Malankara Church that has been narrated in detail in all the judgments including Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos's case, AIR 1959 SC 31 and P.M.A. Metropolitan's case, AIR 1995 SC 2001 , it can be seen that the struggle between the two factions started long back. Various details are contained in paragraphs I to 15 of the judgment in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos's case, AIR 1959 SC 31 . After a trust was created in 1808 by Moran Mar Thoma VI investing 3000 Star Pagodas with the British Treasury at Trivandrum on interest at 8% per annum in perpetuity, disputes arose between the Church Mission Society and the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church with regard to the trust properties. That was settled by Cochin Award made in 1840. By the said award it was decided to divide the properties between the two bodies and so far as the properties allotted to the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church were concerned, it provided that they should be administered by three trustees, namely, (1) the Malankara Metropolitan, (ii) a Kathanar (that is priestly) trustee, and (iii) a lay trustee. In 1876 Patriarch Peter III came to Malabar and he called a meeting of the accredited representatives of all the churches in Malabar which accepted the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch. The said representatives met together in a Synod called the Mulanthuruthy Synod under the presidentship of Patriarch Peter III. In 1876 Patriarch Peter III came to Malabar and he called a meeting of the accredited representatives of all the churches in Malabar which accepted the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch. The said representatives met together in a Synod called the Mulanthuruthy Synod under the presidentship of Patriarch Peter III. At that Synod the Malankara Syrian Christian Association, popularly called the Malankara Association was formed to manage all the affairs of the churches and the community. It consisted of the Malankara Metropolitan as the ex-officio President and three representatives from each Church. A managing committee of 24 was to be the standing working committee of the said Association. 49. The first suit, viz. O.S.No.439 of 1054 was filed on 4.3.1879 by one Mar Joseph Dionysius Metropolitan and the President of Malankara Association, in the Zilla Court of Alleppey. This was filed against one Mar Thomas Athanasius who was claiming his right for administering the affairs. That suit, after several proceedings, was finally disposed of by the Travancore Royal Court of Final Appeal, in favour of the plaintiff-respondent Mar Joseph Dionysius. The conclusions arrived at by the majority of Judges, as set forth in paragraph 347 of the judgment are summarised in para 5 of the judgment in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos'c case, AIR 1959 SC 31 . Those included among others that the ecclesiastical supremacy of the See of Antioch over the Jacobite Syrian Church in Travancore had been all along recognised and acknowledged by the Jacobite Syrian Christian Community and their Metropolitans. The exercise of the supreme power consisted in ordaining either directly or by duly authorised Delegates, Metropolitans from time to time to manage the spiritual matters of the local Church, in sending Moro ne to be used in the Churches for baptismal and other purposes and in general supervision over the spiritual Government of the Church, that the authority of the Patriarch had never extended to the Government of temporalities of the Church which, in this respect, had been an independent Church. It was also held that the Metropolitan of the Jacobite Syrian Church in Travancore should be a native of Malabar consecrated by the Patriarch or by his duly authorised Delegate and accepted by the people as their Metropolitan. Thus, Mar Joseph Dionysius came into possession of the office of the Malankara Metropolitan and of the Church properties. It was also held that the Metropolitan of the Jacobite Syrian Church in Travancore should be a native of Malabar consecrated by the Patriarch or by his duly authorised Delegate and accepted by the people as their Metropolitan. Thus, Mar Joseph Dionysius came into possession of the office of the Malankara Metropolitan and of the Church properties. In 1909 Mar Joseph Dionysius died and the Malankara Association elected and installed one Mar Geevarghese Dionysius (who in 1907, had gone to Syria and got himself ordained as a Metropolitan by Patriarch Abdulla II) as the Malankara Metropolitan and as such he became the Ex-officio President of the Malankara Association and one of the trustees of the Church properties. In fact, upto 1905 one Abdul Messiah was the reigning Patriarch of Antioch. There was a dispute between Abdul Messiah and Abdulla II and the Sultan of Turkey had withdrawn the Firman he had issued recognising Abdul Messiah, later and issued one in favour of Abdulla II as Patriarch. 50. In 1909 Abdulla II came to Malabar. He convened a meeting of the Malankara Association at the Old Seminary of Kottayam. But the Association declined to confer temporal authority on the Patriarch. It is stated in para 8 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos's case (supra) that Abdulla II started approaching the Parish churches separately and attempted to get from them Udampadis (submission deeds) acknowledging the spiritual and temporal supremacy of the Patriarch. He actually succeeded in getting such Udampadis from some of the churches but not from many. He started rewarding persons who gave Udampadis by ordaining them as Metropolitans and ex-communicating those who declined to do so. 51. It is clear from para 8 of the above judgment that Mar Geevarghese Dionysius declined to submit and give an Udampadi and consequently in 1911 Abdulla II ex- communicated Mar Geevarghese Dionoysius whom he himself had ordained in 1907 and ordained one Mar Kurilos as the Malankara Metropolitan so as to make him automatically the ex-officio President of the Malankara Association and one of the trustees of the trust properties. Mar Geevarghese Dionysius convened another meeting of the Malanaraka Association which declared his excommunication invalid and removed from trusteeship the two trustees who had gone over to the side of the Patriarch and appointed two new trustees. 52. Mar Geevarghese Dionysius convened another meeting of the Malanaraka Association which declared his excommunication invalid and removed from trusteeship the two trustees who had gone over to the side of the Patriarch and appointed two new trustees. 52. Another significant development noted in the said judgment is that in 1912 Abdul Messiah whose Firman had been withdrawn by the Sultan of Turkey, came to Malabar. He declared the ex-communication of Mar Geevarghese as invalid. In 1913 he issued a Kalpana establishing a Catholicate in Malabar. By this Kalpana, Abdul Messiah ordained one Mar Poulose Basselios as the first Catholicos and also ordained three Metropolitans. The facts narrated in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment will show that there were two sets of trustees, one headed by Mar Geevarghese Dionysius and the other headed by Mar Kurilos. Both Abdul Messiah and Abdulla II died in 1915. 53. In the meantime, in 1913 the Secretary of the State for India filed O.S.No.94 of 1088 in the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram as an interpleader suit. The two sets of rival claimants were impleaded in the suit as defendants. It was converted as a representative action on behalf of the Jacobite Syrian Christian population of Malabar with the permission of the court. During the pendency of the suit Mar Kurilos died and he was succeeded by Mar Poulose Athanasius. The trial court's judgment went in favour of Mar Geevarghese Dionoysius. On an appeal by defendants 5, 6 and 42 a Full Bench of the Tranvancore High Court reversed the judgment and decree of the District Court. The prayer in the suit was to determine the real trustees entitled to draw the interest on the amounts standing to the credit of the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Christian Community in the British Treasury. The decision of the Full Bench is reported in 41 T.L.R. 1. A review petition was filed by Mar Geevarghese Dionoysius and his two co-trustees which was allowed and thereafter the appeal was re-heard by the Full Bench which upheld the decision of the District Judge and confirmed the decree. The said judgment is reported in 45 T.L.R. 116. 48 54. The significance of these developments, as far as the first respondent Church is also concerned, is clear from Ext.A 1 Udampady, as rightly pointed out by Shri S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel. The said judgment is reported in 45 T.L.R. 116. 48 54. The significance of these developments, as far as the first respondent Church is also concerned, is clear from Ext.A 1 Udampady, as rightly pointed out by Shri S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel. The reference therein is to the then Patriarch Abdulla II and the then Catholicos Kurilose, which is significant. Ext.A I was executed, in the light of the then prevailing circumstances. Therefore, the result of the judgment in 45 T.L.R. 116 being in favour of Mar Geevarghese Dionoysius, who along with the co-trustee were declared as lawful trustees of the Church properties, it cannot be said that the rival faction at that point of time, could have established any claim, thereafter. 55. The Udambady, viz. Ext.AI had really lost significance at that point of time after the judgment of the Travancore High Court reported in 45 TL.R. 116 unless other strong evidence is there on the part of the plaintiffs to show that the affairs of the Church were being administered interns of the said Udambady thereafter, which is lacking in this case. Except the oral assertion of the plaintiffs and some of the supporting defendants no other documentary evidence is there to prove the administration of the Church as per 1913 Udambady, at least after the judgment of the Travancore High Court reported in 45 T.L.R. 116 upto 1959 or even thereafter, as it is claimed in the plaint. 56. The detailed history as contained in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos's case, AIR 1959 SC 31 are available in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case, AIR 1995 SC 2001 , from para 1 onwards upto para 16 which is concerned with the developments between 1911 upto the decision of the Travancore High Court reported in 45 TL.R. 116. 57. As far as the decision of the Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos's case, AIR 1959 SC 31 is concerned, we may notice that the Apex Court held therein that the decision of the Full Bench in the inter-pleader suit, viz. 45 T.L.R. 116 operates as res- judicata. These findings are contained in paragraphs 28 to 39. 57. As far as the decision of the Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos's case, AIR 1959 SC 31 is concerned, we may notice that the Apex Court held therein that the decision of the Full Bench in the inter-pleader suit, viz. 45 T.L.R. 116 operates as res- judicata. These findings are contained in paragraphs 28 to 39. The significance of the decision of the Apex Court in the above decision is that the suit itself (O.S.No. I l I of 1113) was filed by the Patriarch faction after the Malankara Association decided to draw up a Constitution for the Church in the year 1934. Para 16 of the judgment shows that notice for the meeting was issued on 3.12.1934 and the meeting was to be held on 26.12.1934 at M.D. Seminary at Kottayam for electing the Malankara Metropolitan and for adopting the draft Constitution. The meeting was accordingly held and the then Catholicos was elected unanimously as Malankara Metropolitan and he became a trustee of the trust properties. 1934 Constitution was also unanimously adopted. The plaintiffs sought for a declaration of their own title as trustees and for a declaration that the defendants were not trustees. The Patriarch faction had also convened a meeting on 22.8.1935 at Karingasseri to elect the Malankara Metropolitan and Mar Poulose Athanasius was elected as Malankara Metropolitan along with two other trustees. After referring to the decision of the Full Bench in 45 T.L.R. 116 and the findings therein, the Apex Court held that the very same contentions cannot be reagitated in the present suit (paragraphs 32 and 39). It was held that the plaintiff cannot re-agitate the question that the defendant-appellant had ipso facto become heretic or alien or had gone out of the Church. Thus, the decision was in favour of the Catholicos. 58. In para 42 of the judgment, it was found that the meeting of the Malankara Association held at M.D. Seminari at Kottayam on 26.12.1934 has also been held validly. The notices issued were found to be sufficient. All the objections with regard to the validity of the notices and the conduct of the meeting and the adoption of the Constitution have been repelled by the Apex Court. It was held in para 42 that the notices by advertisement in newspapers (Exts.62 and 63) will also be sufficient notice to the Metropolitans and churches on both sides. All the objections with regard to the validity of the notices and the conduct of the meeting and the adoption of the Constitution have been repelled by the Apex Court. It was held in para 42 that the notices by advertisement in newspapers (Exts.62 and 63) will also be sufficient notice to the Metropolitans and churches on both sides. Finally, their Lordships held as follows: "On the materials placed before us we feel satisfied that the notices were served on all the churches including those which sided with the plaintiffs and that there was no adequate ground for rejecting the finding of fact arrived at by the trial court on this question after a fair and ful I consideration of the evidence on record." 59. In the light of the various factors pointed out above and due to the absence of any reliable and cogent evidence on the part of the plaintiffs that the affairs of the Church were being administered as per Ext.A 1 Udambady, upto 1980, when the disputes erupted leading to the closure of the Church, the denial of the reliefs sought for by the appellants/plaintiffs in R.F.A. No.589/2011 as well as the appellants in R. F.A.NO.655/201 1, is perfectly justified. 60. The following aspects are relevant in this context. That peace prevailed in the entire Malankara Church after the 1959 judgment of the Apex Court, is clear from the decision of the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case, AIR 1995 SC 2001 . With regard to the first respondent Church also, it can be safely concluded that the situation was as above and the oral evidence of the witness, P.W. 2 as well as D.Ws.I and 2 will also show that both factions were united within the first respondent Church also. The judgment of the Apex Court in para 21 will show that in December, 1958 a meeting of the Malankara Association was held in which almost all the Churches were participants irrespective of the faction. The deliberations of the meetings held with the participation of both factions are clear from the said paragraph, which show that there was cordial relationship between Catholicos and Patriarch factions. Dioceses were reallotted in 1959, after the decision in a Synod held on 21.12.1959. From 1959 to 1964 several meetings were held in which both groups participated. The deliberations of the meetings held with the participation of both factions are clear from the said paragraph, which show that there was cordial relationship between Catholicos and Patriarch factions. Dioceses were reallotted in 1959, after the decision in a Synod held on 21.12.1959. From 1959 to 1964 several meetings were held in which both groups participated. In 1964 when Mar Ougen I was installed by the Malankara Episcopal Synod, the Patriarch himself presided in the ceremony. In a meeting held in December, 1965 Malankara Association elected five candidates for ordination as Bishops and elected members to the Managing Committee which included members of the Patriarch group as well. It is further recorded that in 1967 the Constitution was amended in consequence of a meeting in which both the groups deliberated. In para 22 the background of the eruption of fresh disputes and the filing of suits from 1973 onwards, have been mentioned. Therefore, it is clear that from 1959 to 1973 or even upto early 1974 there was total unity among the two factions including in the first defendant Church. These aspects also will go against the contentions of the appellants. 61. In the judgment of Hon'ble Jeevan Reddy, J. also, from para 107 onwards the developments subsequent to the judgment of the Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos's case, AIR 1959 SC 31 have been narrated. 62. Point No.2: It is in the said background we will have to analyse the contentions of the Catholicos faction that 1934 Constitution was accepted and was implemented and that the first respondent Church was being administered in terns of the said Constitution. 63. The third defendant who is a priest, has been examined as D.W.3. We will refer to the documents produced by the said defendant. Ext.B 1 is the copy of the 1934 Constitution. Ext.B2 is the General Body Diary of the Church and Ext.B2(a) is the resolution dated 8.3.1959. Ext.B3 is the copy of the Diary of the Managing Committee for the period from 15.3.1959 to 22.9.1964. Ext.B4 is the General Body Diary for the period from 29.10.1961 to 19.12.1971 and Ext.B5 is the General Body Diary for the period from 30.1.1972 to 4.8.1974. Ext.B5(a) is the minutes of the General Body meeting held on 16.12.1973 and Ext.B5(b) is the minutes of the General Body meeting held on 5.5.1974. Ext.B4 is the General Body Diary for the period from 29.10.1961 to 19.12.1971 and Ext.B5 is the General Body Diary for the period from 30.1.1972 to 4.8.1974. Ext.B5(a) is the minutes of the General Body meeting held on 16.12.1973 and Ext.B5(b) is the minutes of the General Body meeting held on 5.5.1974. Ext.B6 is the copy of the judgment in A.S. No.304/1997 of this Court, which arose from O.S.No.19/1980. Ext.B7 is the declaration given by Fr. E.P. Zacharia dated 12.3.1997 and Ext.B8 is the declaration given by the first plaintiff and one Shri Cheria Pathrose who were members of the managing committee elected on 16.12.1973, swearing allegiance to the 1934 Constitution and submitted to the Diocesan Metropolitan. Ext.B9 is the Kalpana dated 31.3.1998 transferring Fr. E.P. Zacharia and appointing Fr. John Thenittalil. Ext.B10 is the order in I.A. No.1569/1998 in O.S. No.31/1998 granting temporary injunction against Fr. E.P. Zaclaria. The judgment in C.M.A. No.345/1998 has been produced as Ext. BI l wherein Ext.B10 order has been confirmed and Ext.B12 is the order passed in S.L.P.No.9141/2000. Ext.B13 is the copy of the attendance register to show the participation of delegates from the first respondent Church, in the meeting held on 20.3.2002 at Parumala, of the Malankara Association. Serial No.8 is claimed to be that of the first respondent Church. Ext.B 14 is the Kalpana of the Catholicos appointing Dr. Mathews Savarious as the Diocesan Metropolitan of Kandanadu Diocese West and it contains the list of Parish churches also. Exts.B 15 to B24 are the minutes of the General Body meetings and Kalpanas for the period from 2007 to 2011. Ext.B25 is the Kalapana of Diocese Metropolitan appointing Fr. M.V. Abraham as Vicar and Ext.B26 is the similar order passed by Diocese Metropolitan appointing the third defendant as Vicar. Marking of Ext.B2 has been objected for the reason that the same is a photo copy and it was marked subject to objection. In the re-examination the originals of Exts.B9, B 14, B 16, B 18, B22 and B25 have been marked as Exts.B9(a), B 14(a), B 16(a), B 16(a), B 18(a), B22(a) and B25(a). 64. The relevant clauses in Ext.B 1, viz. the 1934 Constitution will show that various provisions have been incorporated for constituting the managing committees of the Parish, Diocese, Malankara Association, etc. Clause I declares that the primate of Orthodox Syrian Church is the Patriarch of Antioch. 64. The relevant clauses in Ext.B 1, viz. the 1934 Constitution will show that various provisions have been incorporated for constituting the managing committees of the Parish, Diocese, Malankara Association, etc. Clause I declares that the primate of Orthodox Syrian Church is the Patriarch of Antioch. Clause 2 declares that the prirriate of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is the Catholicos of the East. Chapter 11 relates to the Parish assembly membership, payment of subscription, procedure for conduct of the same and other relevant aspects, including maintenance of registers. Clause 17 provides for election of lay trustee, Secretary and members of managing committee, auditors, passing of budget and other business, etc.. Clause 24 onwards provides for the election of the Parish managing committee and the membership is limited to 15 and the term is- for one year. Election will have to be held on ward basis. After the election, the minutes will have to be forwarded to the Diocese Metropolitan for approval and if the approval is not communicated. within three weeks, it will be deemed that the election has been approved. The procedure for conduct of meetings have also been provided. Clause 45 onwards deals with the meetings of Diocese general body. Clause 56 onwards deals with Diocesan Council, Clause 63 onwards deal with Diocesan Metropolitan and Clause 70 onwards deal with Malankara Church and Malankara Association. Clause 78 onwards deal with the formation of managing committee for the Association. Clause 94, confers religious, spiritual and temporal powers on the Malankara Metropolitan. Clause 99 onwards deal with the Catholicos powers, etc.. Clause 101 is significant which states that the Malankara Church will accept the Patriarch who was ordained with the co- operation of Catholicos. The details of formation of Episcopal Synod are provided from clause 102 onwards. Clause 129 provides that byelaws can be framed in tune with the object and principles of Ext.B 1 and not inconsistent with them, by the Parish Assembly, Council of the Diocese and Metropolitan Council which can be implemented after getting approval of the Managing Committee. In clause 132 it has been provided that all udambadies, orders, etc. inconsistent with the clauses of the Constitution, will be deemed to have been cancelled. 65. Exts.B2 and B2(a) are copies of the general body diary from 1959 to the middle of 1961-1962. of course, they are photo copies which have been marked subject to the objection. In clause 132 it has been provided that all udambadies, orders, etc. inconsistent with the clauses of the Constitution, will be deemed to have been cancelled. 65. Exts.B2 and B2(a) are copies of the general body diary from 1959 to the middle of 1961-1962. of course, they are photo copies which have been marked subject to the objection. Ext.B2(a) relied upon by the third defendant is the minutes of the meeting of the Parish Assembly held on 8.3.1959. Resolution No.1 expresses respect and obedience to the Patriarch and Catholicos as well as happiness in the unity achieved in the Church. Resolution No.4 is the one relating to acceptance of 1934 Constitution and what is recorded is that the resolution introduced by one T.V. Paulose and supported by Shri N.P. Mathai has been unanimously adopted by the general body. 66. We will now come to Ext.B4 which is the original of the general body diary of the Parish for the year 1961-1962 onwards and it is concluded by the minutes of the meeting held on 19.12.1971. Page 9 of the same records the deliberations of the annual general body meeting of the year 1961-1962, held on 25.3.1962. The election conducted to the managing committee for the next year has been recorded in page 13. Fourteen members have been elected to the managing committee on ward basis and one member had been elected from among the new members of the Church, totalling 15. Apart from the members of managing committee, the minutes show the election of the Trustee, Secretary and Auditors. Page 17 shows that the minutes have been approved by the Diocese Metropolitan and his signature and seal are also there. Page 18 contains the minutes of the meeting held on 13.5.1962 which shows that delegates have been elected to the Malankara Association of the first respondent Church as well as Kottoor Church (said to be a subordinate Church). Other business items transacted have also been recorded. At page 23, the Diocesan Metropolitan has affixed his seal and signature. Page 32 contains the minutes of the annual general body meeting held on 17.3.1963 and page 38 contains the details of the election conducted to the office of the Trustee, Secretary, auditors and 14 managing committee members on ward basis. One member has been elected representing new members of the Church. Page 32 contains the minutes of the annual general body meeting held on 17.3.1963 and page 38 contains the details of the election conducted to the office of the Trustee, Secretary, auditors and 14 managing committee members on ward basis. One member has been elected representing new members of the Church. The minutes have been approved as evident from page 42, by the Diocese Metropolitan under his signature and seal. Page 43 contains the minutes of the general body meeting dated 19.5.1963. It records Kalpana No.63 of the Diocesan Metropolitan Ougen Mar Thimothios approving the election to the managing committee and appointing the Vicar. Other items of business have also been transacted. Page 52 contains the signature and seal of the Diocesan Metropolitan. Shri S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel referred to page 55 of the minutes to show that the Church had decided to contribute an amount of Rs.1,001 /- for the construction of Devaloka Aramana in terms of the Kalpana of the Catholicos. Page 56 contains the seal and signature of Diocesan Metropolitan. The next page referred to is page 86 which contains the minutes of the meeting held on 21.3.1965. It records the visit to the Church by the then Patriarch Shri Moren Mar Ignathios Yakoob Ill and Catholicos of the East and Malankara Metropolitan Shri Moren Mar Basselios Ougen I and the reception accorded to them. Page 90 contains the details of the election held for the year 1965-1966. Fourteen persons have been elected and one member has been elected unanimously from among the new members and auditors have also been elected, apart from trustee and secretary. The next page referred to is page 104 in which item 8 contains the appointment of one more priest in the Church by the then Diocese Metropolitan. Page 109 contains the minutes of the general body meeting held on 5.12.1965 which includes the election of delegates of Malankara Association representing the Church as well as Kottoor Church and a unanimous election is recorded. Page 114 contains the details of the election to 15 members to the managing committee and auditors, apart from the secretary and trustee. Page 126 contains the minutes of the meeting held on 17.4.1966 and one of the items is election of delegates to the Diocesan Council. Page 114 contains the details of the election to 15 members to the managing committee and auditors, apart from the secretary and trustee. Page 126 contains the minutes of the meeting held on 17.4.1966 and one of the items is election of delegates to the Diocesan Council. Page 137 onwards are the decisions taken in the meeting held on 18.12.1966 and page 143 contains the details of the election to the managing committee totalling 15 members, apart from secretary, trustee and auditors. This was conducted for the year 1967. Pages 161 to 163 contain the details of the election held in the general body meeting on 17.12.1967. The same was for the election for the year 1968 including that of the Trustee, Secretary, Deputy Secretary, managing committee members and Auditors. Page 175 onwards is the minutes of the meeting held on 24.11.1968. Page 178 records the minutes of the meeting held on 22.12.1968 and it contains the details of election for the year 1969 to the offices of the Trustee, Secretary, Deputy Secretary and managing committee members and auditors. Page 205 is referred to, to show that one of the decisions recorded is that of the transfer of one Vicar, Valayil Abraham Kathanar by the Diocesan Metropolitan to Piramadam Dayara Church and the appointment of Poovathumveettil Abraham Kathanar as the Vicar of the first respondent Church. Page 208 contains the details of election of the delegates held on 6.9.1970 from first respondent Church and Kottoor Church to attend the general body meeting of Kandanadu Bhadrasanam, to be held on 10.9.1970. Three persons each have been delegated. Page 211 contains the details of the meeting held on 20.12.1970 of the general body.and page 212 contains the details of the election of 15 members to the Managing Committee of Parish, Trustee, Secretary, Deputy Secretary and auditors. Pages 214 and 215 contain the deliberations of the general body dated 31.1.1971 and at page 215 it is recorded that the representatives of the Church participated in the meeting of the Malankara Association and one M. Chacko Pillai has been elected as managing committee member of the Malankara Association. Page 222 records the details of election to the managing committee as well as Auditors, Trustee and Secretary, in the meeting held on 19.12.1971. The election for the year 1972 has thus been held. The President of the committee has signed the minutes also. 67. Page 222 records the details of election to the managing committee as well as Auditors, Trustee and Secretary, in the meeting held on 19.12.1971. The election for the year 1972 has thus been held. The President of the committee has signed the minutes also. 67. Ext.B3 is the managing committee diary of the first respondent Church for the period from 15.3.1959 to 22.9.1963. These have recorded the details of the decisions taken by the managing committee on different dates during these years. 68. Ext.B5 is the original of the general body diary of the Parish from 30.1.1972. Page 1 contains the details of the annual report for the year 1971, followed by the budget for 1972. Page 9 records the minutes of the general body held on 17.12.1972 which includes the election to the office of the Trustee, Secretary and managing committee members of the Parish for the year 1973. Fourteen members have been elected from the wards and one member has been unanimously elected from among the new members. Page 23 records the minutes of the annual general body meeting held on 1 6.12.1973 showing the election of the Trustee, Secretary, Deputy Secretary and 15 managing committee members of the Parish for the year 1974. Page 25 onwards contain the deliberations of the first general body meeting held on 27.1.1974. Pages 31 and 32 records the election of delegates of the governing body of the Medical Mission Hospital and ten members have been unanimously elected in the same meeting. Page 33 records the minutes of the general body held on 5.5.1974. The election was held to send delegates to the Diocesan General Council from the first respondent Church and Kottoor Church. Page 35 records the minutes of the meeting held on 4.8.1974. The agenda of the meeting was the election of representatives of the Malankara Association from the first respondent Church and Kottoor Church, The minutes show that there were two factions and the proceedings were disrupted and even though the meeting continued for two hours, ultimately the meeting was dissolved by the President as the situation became uncontrollable. 69. We will now consider the acceptability of these items of evidence. 69. We will now consider the acceptability of these items of evidence. The minutes of the general body meetings held, as recorded in Exts.B4 and B5 show that deliberations were being conducted from time to time including election annually to the office of the Trustee, Secretary, Deputy Secretary as well as 15 managing committee members of the Parish. The proceedings have been recorded as already noticed, with the signature of the Diocesan Metropolitan and his seal, in various pages of Ext.B4. The said procedure is in tune with the relevant clauses of Ext.B 1 including clause 30. The election of Parish managing committee is contained in clause 25 of Ext.B 1. The Managing Committee's strength is fixed as a minimum of five members and maximum of 15 which is tallied with in various elections held, as recorded in Exts.B4 and B5. The elections are held on ward basis as specified in clause 25 which is also clear from the minutes of the general body. The approval granted by the Metropolitan on different dates, under the minutes recorded, is also significant. The same is also in tune with the relevant clauses in Ext.B I, viz. clause 27. 70. As we have already noticed, apart from the elections to the managing committee of the Parish, elections have been held for sending the delegates to the Diocesan Council as well as to the Malankara Association. Recording of other resolutions, passing of budgets and other annual reports, etc. will show that deliberations have been held from time to time on a regular basis and it reflects regularity in the proceedings. 71. There is no evidence as we have already noticed, with regard to the meetings, if any, held in terms of Ext.Al Udambady. Ext.B3 records the deliberations of the managing committee from 15.3.1959. A verification of the same also shows regularity in the proceedings and the recording of the decisions from time to time. 72. 71. There is no evidence as we have already noticed, with regard to the meetings, if any, held in terms of Ext.Al Udambady. Ext.B3 records the deliberations of the managing committee from 15.3.1959. A verification of the same also shows regularity in the proceedings and the recording of the decisions from time to time. 72. Coupled with the fact that there are no evidence to show that Ext.A I was acted upon during the crucial period, i.e. from 1959 to 1973 covered by the documents produced by the defendants and the fact that the third defendant has succeeded in producing various documents in support of the acceptance of 1934 Constitution, we are of the view that the plaintiffs have failed in proving their contention that the affairs of the Church were being held in terms of Ext.A I Udambady. The proceedings really show acceptance of 1934 Constitution. Even if Exts.B2 and B2(a) are photo copies, Exts.B4 and B5 are sufficient to prove the case of the third defendant and others about the acceptance of 1934 Constitution which will easily relate back to 1959 as it is an accepted fact that peace and unity prevailed in the Malankara Church and both factions were united including in the first respondent Church. Evidence justifies drawing a presumption of continuance backwards, to that extent at least. 73. Another factor is also significant while considering the acceptance of 1934 Constitution. In the oral evidence of P.W. 1, apart from pleading ignorance of various important events, he has not been able to depose anything about the meetings, if any, held based on Ext.A I Udambady at any time upto 1980. In his proof affidavit in para 14 what is stated is that there has not been proper election to the managing committee for the last several years. Exts.B4 and B5 will show the details of the elections held upto the year 1974 which show that the general body meetings were being held in an orderly manner and elections were accordingly conducted. In this context, we will refer to the evidence of P. W.2 who has stated in para 3 of the proof affidavit that the last election was held in the Church on 16.12.1973. Same is the version given by D.W.1, viz. In this context, we will refer to the evidence of P. W.2 who has stated in para 3 of the proof affidavit that the last election was held in the Church on 16.12.1973. Same is the version given by D.W.1, viz. the fifth defendant who supports the plaintiffs, in para 4 of the proof affidavit as well as D.W2 who also supports the plaintiffs, in para 7 of the proof affidavit. We have seen from Ext.B5 the details of the general body meeting held and the election held on 16.12.1973 which has been marked as Ext.B5(a). Since even the evidence of the plaintiffs and the supporting defendants is to the effect that the last election was held on 16.12.1973 and since the third defendant has produced the minutes of the said meeting which shows that meeting was conducted peacefully and in an orderly manner and elections were held to the fifteen member managing committee which is in tune with the relevant clauses in Ext.B1, we will be right in holding that these elections were held in terms of the 1934 Constitution and not on the basis of any other bye-laws or Udambady. There is also no plea by the plaintiffs that apart from Ext.Al there are any bye-laws for conducting election which were in force in the first respondent Church. 74. Shri N. Sukumaran, learned Senior Counsel contended that, an 18 members committee was elected on 16.12.1973, which is not in tune with -6-8-1934 Constitution. Shri S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel explained that after the election of 15 members, 3 others have been co-opted on different capacities and it is not a case of actual election of 18 members. On a perusal of Ext.B5(a), it is seen that, election is held for 15 member committee, and after it the Chairman of the meeting announced that one Construction Committee member, Sunday School Inspector and Chairman of the St. Peters High School and Training School will also be its members. It will not show that election is to 18 members committee and we reject the said argument. 75. Peters High School and Training School will also be its members. It will not show that election is to 18 members committee and we reject the said argument. 75. The truce between the factions after the judgment of the Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos's case ( AIR 1959 SC 31 ), as we have already noticed, also contributed the above state of affairs in the first respondent Church and there had not been any factional dispute for the period upto August 1974. This also clearly supports the plea of the respondents and others belonging to Catholicos faction. The third defendant has produced Ext.B2 to show the acceptance of 1934 Constitution in the meeting held on 8.3.1959. of course, Ext.B2 is the photo copy of the resolution and it has been produced stating that the same was produced as an exhibit in O.S.No. 19/1980 also. Assuming that the originals have not been produced, in the light of the production of Exts.B3, B4 and B5 and in the light of the truce between the factions from 1958 onwards, it can be safely concluded that there was proper acceptance of "1934 Constitution. Therefore, the non production of the original of the documents, Exts.B2 and B2(a) will not be material. 76. Now we will come to the argument of the learned Senior Counsel on either side with regard to the effect of P.M.A. Metropolitan's case ( AIR 1995 SC 2001 ) on the affairs of individual Parish churches. The conclusions of Hon'ble R.M. Sahai, J. are contained in pars 76 which reads as follows: "76. The conclusions thus reached are, 1(a). The civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suits for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and suit. (b) The expression 'civil nature' used in Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is wider than even civil proceedings, and thus extends to such religious matters which have civil consequence. (c) Section 9 is very wide. In absence of any ecclesiastical courts any religious dispute is cognizable, except in very rare case where the declaration sought may be what constitutes religious rite. 2. (c) Section 9 is very wide. In absence of any ecclesiastical courts any religious dispute is cognizable, except in very rare case where the declaration sought may be what constitutes religious rite. 2. Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not debar those cases where declaration is sought for a period prior to the Act came into force or for enforcement of right which was recognised before coming into force of the Act. 3. The following findings in Moran Mar Basselios (supra) have become final and operate as res judicata : (a) The Catholicate of the East was created in Malankara in 1912. (b) The Constitution framed in 1934 by Malankara Association 'is valid. (c) The Catholicos were not heretics nor they had established separate Church. (d) The meeting held by Patriarch Group in 1935 was invalid. 4(a) The effect of the two judgments rendered by the Appellate Court of the Royal Court and in Moran Mar Basselios (supra) by this Court is that both Catholicos and Patriarch Group continue to be members of the Syrian Orthodox Church. (b) The Patriarch of Antioch has no temporal powers over the Churches. (c) Effect of the creation of Catholicate at Malankara and 1934 Constitution is that the Patriarch can exercise spiritual powers subject to the Constitution. The spiritual powers of the Patriarch of Antioch can be exercised by the Catholicos in accordance with the Constitution. 5(a) The Hudaya Canon produced by the Patriarch is not the authentic version. (b) There is no power in the Hudaya Canon to excommunicate Catholicos. 6. The excommunication of the Catholicos by the Patriarch was invalid. 7. All Churches, except those which are of Evangelistic Association or Simhasana or St. Mary are under spiritual and temporal control of the Malankara Association in accordance with 1934 Constitution." In sub para (3) it was held that the 1934 Constitution framed by Malankara Association is valid. In sub para 4(b) it was held that the Patriarch of Antioch has no temporal powers over the churches and in sub para 4(c) it was held that the Patriarch can exercise spiritual powers subject to the Constitution. In sub para 7, it has been held that all churches, except those which are of Evangelistic Association or Simhasana or St. Mary are under spiritual and temporal control of the Malankara Association in accordance with 1934 Constitution. 77. In sub para 7, it has been held that all churches, except those which are of Evangelistic Association or Simhasana or St. Mary are under spiritual and temporal control of the Malankara Association in accordance with 1934 Constitution. 77. Para 142 of the judgment of Hon'ble Jeevan Reddy, J. gives the conclusions as herein below: "142. The result of the above discussion may be summarised thus: (1) The Vattipanam judgment has held that the version of Hudaya Canon put forward by Patriarch group as Ex. 13 in the suit is the correct version and not the version put forward by the Catholicos group. However, in Samudayam suit, the District Judge (Trial Court) accepted the version of Canon put forward by the Catholicos group as against the version put forward by Patriarch group. It is suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent that this finding of the District Judge must be deemed to have been restored by this Court in AIR 1959 S.C. 31 . It is really unnecessary for us to go into this question since it has lost all significance in view of the subsequent developments and their effect, as accepted by us. (2) The Catholicate was revived and re-established by Patriarch Abdul Messiah in the year 1912. The powers and functions of the Catholicos are set out in Ex. A. 14. Moreover by virtue of their acts and conduct subsequent to the judgment of this Court in AIR 1959 SC 3 1, the defendants in the present suit (i.e. the members of the Patriarch group) cannot now dispute the validity of the revival of the Catholicate or of Ex. A. 14 (3) It may be that by conferring upon the Catholicos the powers of ordaining Metropolitans, consecrating Morone and to exercise other spiritual powers over Malankara Church, the Patriarch may not have denuded himself completely of the said powers which he enjoyed until then. But in view of the fact that he had himself created another centre of power in India with the aforesaid powers, it would be reasonable to hold that thereafter the Patriarch cannot exercise those powers unilaterally, i.e., without reference to the Catholicos. He can exercise those powers only in consultation with the Catholicos. Moreover, the person to be appointed as Metropolitan or Malankara Metropolitan has to be accepted by the people as has been affirmed in the judgment in Seminary suit. He can exercise those powers only in consultation with the Catholicos. Moreover, the person to be appointed as Metropolitan or Malankara Metropolitan has to be accepted by the people as has been affirmed in the judgment in Seminary suit. The Patriarch's power to ordain the Metropolitans now is subject to the Constitution of 1934. (4) It may be that by virtue of the revival of Catholicate and by issuing the Kalpana Ex.A. 14 - and also by accepting the Constitution (as to be mentioned presently). - the power of the patriarch may have been reduced to a vanishing point, but all the same he remains the supreme head of the Syrian Church of which the Malankara Church is a division. He is spiritually superior to the Catholicos though he does not, and indeed never did, enjoy any temporal powers over the Malankara Church or its properties. (5) The 1934 Constitution was approved at a validly convened meeting of Malankara Association, which Association was created by the Patriarch himself under the Resolutions of Mulanthuruthy Synod. The defendants in the present suits (Patriarch group) cannot question its legality and validity in view of the acts and conduct of the Patriarch and the members of his group subsequent to the judgment of this Court in AIR 1959 SC 3 1. (6) Ex.A. 19, Kalpana, was issued by Patriarch Yakub with the full knowledge of revival of Catholicate, Ex.A. 14 and the 1934 Constitution and the various claims and contentions of both the parties put forward in Samudayarn suit and the decision of this Court in AIR 1959 SC 31 . It must, therefore, be held that the Patriarch has thereby accepted the validity of the revival of Catholicate Ex.A. 14 and the 1934 Constitution, and abandoned and gave up all or any objections they had in that behalf. Several members of his group including some of the defendants also accepted the Constitution and took oath to abide by it. They cannot now turn round and question the same. (7) Though the Patriarch raised objections to the honorifics (e.g., use of "Holiness" with the name of the Catholicos and his assertion that he was seated "on the Throne of St. They cannot now turn round and question the same. (7) Though the Patriarch raised objections to the honorifics (e.g., use of "Holiness" with the name of the Catholicos and his assertion that he was seated "on the Throne of St. Thomas in the East") and to the qualification added by the Catholicos in his Kalpana Ex.A. 20 (i.e., accepting the Patriarch subject to the Constitution), the Patriarch must be deemed to have given up and abandoned all those objections when he came to India, pursuant to a canonical invitation from the Malankara Synod and installed and consecrated the new Catholicos on May 22, 1964. It is also worth noticing that a day before such installation/consecration, the Patriarch took care to have the territorl'al jurisdiction of Catholicate duly defined and de-limited by excluding certain areas in the Middle East from the jurisdiction of the Catholicos. (8) So far as the declaration of the Malankara Church being Episcopal in character is concerned, all we need hold is that it is episcopal to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 Constitution. The said Constitution also governs the affairs of the Parish Churches and shall prevail. (9) The excommunication of Catholicos by the Patriarch and/or by the Universal Synod is invalid for the reason that the grounds/charges on which the excommunication has been effected are not permissible or relevant grounds. The denial of Patriarch's spiritual authority by the Catholicos and his group and similarly the Patriarch's refusal to recognise the Catholicos or the 1934 Constitution in the correspondence that passed during the years 1972 to 1975 are attributable to the personal differences and the mutual bickering between the two dignitaries and their respective groups. On that basis, it can neither be said that the Catholicos or his followers have become apostates or that they have deviated from the tenets of the faith. Similarly, Patriarch cannot be said to have lost his spiritual supremacy over the Malankara Church (on account of his accusations and declarations) which he enjoyed prior to the commencement of the said correspondence, i.e., according to the 1934 Constitution. (10) The common properties (Samudayam properties) held by the Malankara Church are vested in Malankara Metropolitan and others as declared in the judgment of this Court in A.I.R. 1959 SC 31. 78. (10) The common properties (Samudayam properties) held by the Malankara Church are vested in Malankara Metropolitan and others as declared in the judgment of this Court in A.I.R. 1959 SC 31. 78. In para 69 of the judgment it was held by Hon'ble Sahai, J. that the Parish Churches are governed by the 1934 Constitution and that the existence or exercise of autonomy for Parishes has no meaning. It was also held that the independence or autonomy in temporal matters is not of any consequence. 79. The discussion with regard to the effect of non impleading of individual Parish Churches is contained in para 64 of the judgment of Hon'ble Sahai, J. It was held that the suit was a representative one and that it was not necessary to implead every Parish Churches as a party. The argument that non impleadment of individual Parish Churches precludes the court from granting a declaration of the nature, was held as not correct. The other important paragraph relied upon by learned Senior Counsel Shri S. Sreekumar is para 71 wherein it was held that "the Church is Episcopal and not congregational." It was held therein that "the property vests in the endowment. That is the fundamental difference in congregational and episcopal. In the former it vests in the Parishioner. But in the latter in endowment. Once it is conceded that the Syrian Churches are episcopal in character, then the distinction between spiritual and temporal is of no consequence. Therefore, the property of the Church vests in the endowment and not the Parishioners. The right to manage such property vests in the trustees under the bye-law subject to the control by the Catholicos and Metropolitan in accordance with the Constitution." It was further held that "Parish Churches are thus governed in their administration by the Constitution of the Malankara Church" and that "the claim, therefore, that the Patriarch Churches are autonomous and independent in temporal matters cannot be accepted. That would be contrary to the Mulanthuruthy Synod, the decision in the Royal Court of Appeal, the Arthat Case and the Constitution of 1934." 80. That would be contrary to the Mulanthuruthy Synod, the decision in the Royal Court of Appeal, the Arthat Case and the Constitution of 1934." 80. Para 141 of the judgment of Hon'ble Jeevan Reddy, J. refers to the findings rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Moran Mar Baseliose Marthoma Mathews I, 1990 (2) KLT Supplement wherein it was held by the Division Bench that "the Parish Churches are not independent and are constituent parts of the Malankara Church and enjoy a degree of autonomy and the administration of the day-to-day affairs vests in the Parish Assembly and committee elected by the Parish Assembly subject to supervisory powers of the Metropolitan and the provisions of the Constitution of the Malankara Sabha do not affect this position." The Apex Court thereafter has held as follows: "We are, however, of the opinion that in this suit no declaration can be granted affecting the rights of Parish Churches in their absence nor can it be declared that the properties held by Malankara Parish Churches vest in the Catholicos or the Malankara Metropolitan or the Metropolitan of the concerned diocese, as the case may be. Indeed, no such specific relief has been asked for in the suit and without impleading the affected parties, no declaration can be claimed by the plaintiffs that their Church is episcopal in nature, if that declaration means that it gives the Catholicos/Malankara Metropolitan/the Metropolitan of the Diocese any title to or any control over the properties held by the Parish Churches." The question is whether the above finding will help the appellants to contend anything by way of raising a dispute regarding 1934 Constitution and as regards its applicability to the first respondent Church. The significant observations made by the Apex Court in para 141 of the judgment will show that it was not possible to grant a declaration in respect of the Parish Churches, in their absence. But finally it was held that "the 1934 Constitution shall govern and regulate the affairs of the Parish Churches in so far as such Constitution provides for the same." Importantly, in para 142 (8), it has been held as follows: "So far as the declaration of the Malankara Church being Episcopal in character is concerned, all we need hold is that it is episcopal to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 Constitution. The said Constitution also governs the affairs of the Parish Churches and shall prevail." Sub para (5) of Para 142 shows that "The 1934 Constitution was approved at a validly convened meeting of Malankara Association, which Association was created by the Patriarch himself under the Resolutions of Mulanthuruthy Synod." It was further held that "The defendants in the present suits (Patriarch group) cannot question its legality and validity in view of the acts and conduct of the Patriarch and the members of his group subsequent to the judgment of this Court in AIR 1959 SC 31 ." 81. We will now deal with another argument raised by both sides relating to the question whether P.M.A. Metropolitan's case (supra) has left all questions regarding Parish Churches open. Shri N. Sukumaran, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Moran Mar Baselious Marthoma Mathews IIs case, 2003 (1) KLT 780 . Para 34 of the judgment reads as follows: "34. On a consideration of the matter, it appears that the basic declaration given by their lordships was that the Constitution of 1934 binds all the Churches. However, so far as the rights of the Parish Churches are concerned, there was no declaration against them as they had not been impleaded as parties." It is therefore submitted that the entire matters concerning Parish Churches are open for consideration. Reliance is also placed on para 49 of the judgment wherein it has been held as follows: "49. On a consideration of the matter, we find that even under the judgment delivered by their lordships of the Supreme Court, there is no declaration affecting the rights of the Parish Churches. Secondly, it is the undisputed position that a large number of suits are pending between the parties. Thirdly, unanimous resolutions have been passed by various churches in exercise of their fundamental rights under the Constitution by which they have dissociated themselves from the Malankara Association. Fourthly, there are provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure like 21, Rule 32 and 45, Rule 15 which provide for the method by which the decree of the Supreme Court can be executed. Fourthly, there are provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure like 21, Rule 32 and 45, Rule 15 which provide for the method by which the decree of the Supreme Court can be executed. In this situation, it cannot be said that the petitioners had an undisputed right, which can be enforced by the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, or that respondents 1 to 4 are under an obligation to provide them police protection. In fact, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is before the civil court where the disputed questions of fact can be appropriately decided." 82. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Shri S. Sreekumar that the above said judgment has been reversed by the Apex Court in Moran Mar Baselios Marthoma Mathews II v. State of Kerala, 2007 (3) KLT 349 (SC). We have gone through the findings in the said judgment. In para 7, the Apex Court after considering the various observations made by the Division Bench and the findings rendered thereafter, has held as follows: "7. The short question which arises for consideration, in our opinion, is as to whether in a situation of this nature, the High Court should have gone into the rival contentions of the parties. Our answer is 'No'. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus may be granted against the State commanding it to perform its legal duties when it fails and/or neglects to do so. Our answer is 'No'. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus may be granted against the State commanding it to perform its legal duties when it fails and/or neglects to do so. It is, however, another thing that while considering only that aspect of the matter, the Court in the garb of rendering a decision on that limited aspect would go into the disputed question of title and/or interpretation of a Judgment of this Court wherefor other remedies are not only available but, as noticed hereinbefore, in fact, more than 200 suits, touching one aspect of the matter or the other, are pending in different Civil Courts." Finally, in para 11 their Lordships have held that "we have no doubt in our mind that such disputed questions in regard to title of the properties or the right of one group against the other in respect of the management of such a large number of Churches could not have been the subject-matter for determination by a Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the garb of grant of police protection to one or the other appellants." Finally, in para 14 it was held as follows: "14. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a manifest error in going into the disputed questions of title as also the disputed questions in regard to the rights of a particular group to manage the Churches, in exercise of its Writ jurisdiction, particularly, when such questions are pending consideration before competent Civil Courts. We, therefore, are of the opinion that any observation made by the High Court should not influence the Courts concerned in arriving at their independent decisions and in respect thereof, all contentions of the parties shall remain open." 83. In the light of the fact that the judgment in Moran Mar Baselioss Marthoma Mathews 11, 2003 (1) KLT 780 has been reversed and particularly in the light of the findings referred to above, the observations made by the Division Bench cannot be a matter for this Court in these proceedings, to rely upon as sought for by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and we reject the said contention. 84. 84. In this context, certain findings rendered by the Division Bench in Moran Mar Baseliose Marthoma Mathews 1, 1990 (2) KLT Supplement with regard to Parish Churches and their status which have been referred to by the Apex Court, are worth to be noticed. We will record those findings in a nutshell: (i) In para 59 it has been held that "it is therefore not open to any parish or any segment of the Malankara community to contend that the 1934 Constitution was not validly or lawfully adopted." (ii) "We are in agreement with the view that Malankara church though it has some episcopal characteristics is not a purely episcopal church. But we are not able to agree that the individual parish churches are independent churches or churches with independent status We do not think that any of these decisions can help us to arrive at a conclusion that the parish churches of Malankara Sabha are independent or wholly autonomous churches", (ra72) (iii) "We have no doubt that the parish churches are constituent parts of the Malankara church and enjoy a degree of autonomy and the administration of the day to day affairs vests in the Parish Assembly and committee elected by the Parish Assembly subject to supervisory powers of the Metropolitan and the provisions of the Constitution of the Malankara Sabha do not affect this position", (Para 75) (iv) "We have already indicated that the Constitution has come into existence as a product of the will of the gathering of the representatives of the parish churches and as such is valid and binding on all the parish churches. The question of ratification by any parish church does not arise", (para 81) (v) "We hold that the Constitution of the Malankara Sabha as amended is binding on the entire Malankara Syrian Christian Church and community including all the dioceses, parishes and parishioners", (para 83) (vi) The decision of the Mulanthuruthy Synod represented the will of Patriarch who represented the entire Orthodox Syrian church, the will of episcopa and the Malanakara church, the clergy and the representatives of parish churches. There cannot be any doubt that the Association is a representative body which has the right to bind the Malankara church, the community, the parish and the parishioners by its deliberations and actions", (para 84) (vii) "Para 89". There cannot be any doubt that the Association is a representative body which has the right to bind the Malankara church, the community, the parish and the parishioners by its deliberations and actions", (para 84) (vii) "Para 89". In conclusion we hold as follows: (a) 1934 Constitution is valid and binding on the Malankara Association, Community, Dioceses as well as parish churches and parishioners. (b) Parish churches are not congregational or independent, but are constituent units of Malankara church, they have fair degree of autonomy subject to the supervisory powers vesting in the Managing Committee of the Malankara Association, Catholicos and the Malankara Metropolitan as the case may be. Administration of the day-to-day affairs of parish churches vests in parish assembly and elected committees of the parishes. (c) Mnkara church is not purely episcopal but has only some episcopal, ala. characteristics. (d) Malankara Association is a representative body which has right to bind the Malankara church, the community, parishes and parishioners by its deliberations and actions." 85. The above conclusions will show that parish churches are constituent units of the Malankara church, they have fair degree of autonomy subject to the supervisory powers vesting the Managing Committee of the Malankara Association and the 1934 Constitution is valid and binding on the Malankara Association, Community, Dioceses as well as parish churches and parishioners. With regard to the question of spiritual and supervisory powers of Patriarch of Antioch, the Division Bench held in para 99 as follows: "We hold that while Patriarch of Antioch is the head of World Orthodox Syrian church Catholicos of the East who is subject to the Constitution is head of the Malankara church and the relationship between Patriarchate and the Malankara Church is governed by the provisions of the Constitution." The finding in para 103 with regard to the administration of the properties of the parish churches, is also relevant in this context. It has been held as follows: "We have held that the community and the parishioners are bound by the provisions of the Constitution, even those provisions which recognise the supervisory jurisdiction of the Malankara Metropolitan and the organs of the Association over parish church properties. But it cannot be said that the administration of the properties of the parishes or parish church vests in the Malankara Metropolitan. But it cannot be said that the administration of the properties of the parishes or parish church vests in the Malankara Metropolitan. Administration vests in the parish assemblies and the trustees for the time being subject of course to the provisions of the Constitution. Administration of the properties of the dioceses vests in the Diocesan Metropolitans subject to the provisions of the Constitution." 86. In the judgment in Hon'ble R.M. Sahai, J. (P.M.A. Metropolitan's case)(supra) from para 58 onwards the nature and status of the Parish Churches have been considered. After considering various aspects, the finding of the Division Bench of this Court that the Constitution is valid and binding on the Malankara Association Community, Dioceses as well as Parish Churches and parishioners, has been noted in paragraphs 60 and 61, after referring to the amendment of the Constitution in 1967. The important question thereafter considered is with regard to the non-impleadment of each Parish Church. Finally, it was observed, after referring to the written statements, in para 63 as follows: "These averments would indicate that the parties were very much at issue on the question whether Parish Churches were constituents of Malankara or not." The significant observation in para 64 is also relevant which reads as follows: "It is too late, therefore, to urge that no declaration on the status of Parish Churches be granted." It is in that context, it was further held therein that "the suit was for a declaration that the Malankara Church was episcopal in character and not a Union of Federation of Autonomous Churches and it was not necessary to implead every Parish Church as a party." Significantly, it was also observed that "Moreover, the declaration sought is as to matter of law. No factual dispute arises." The learned Judge further held in that paragraph that "Therefore, the submission that the non-impleadment of individual Parishes precluded the court from granting any declaration about the nature and status of Parish Churches, does not appear to be correct." (emphasis supplied) Therefore, evidently, the learned Judge was discussing the matter in the light of the plea raised in O.S.No.4/ 1979 and considered by the Division Bench with regard to the status of Parish Churches. In para 69, it was held that the Parishes are bound by the Constitution framed in 1934. In para 69, it was held that the Parishes are bound by the Constitution framed in 1934. While considering the powers of the Metropolitan, in para 71 it was held that "the extent of power also remains the same, namely, not to interfere in day to day administration of a member which is governed by its own bye-laws" 87. Thus, the view taken by the Division Bench in that regard was accepted. With regard to these aspects, the judgment of Hon'ble Jeevan Reddy, J., according to us, has also upheld the Division Bench judgment, in pars 141, as follows: "On a consideration of the relevant material placed before it, the Division Bench has held that while the Orthodox Syrian Church including the Malankara Church is Episcopal in spiritual matters, in temporal matters it is not Episcopal. It referred, in our opinion rightly, to the judgment of the Royal Court of Final Appeal of Travancore in Seminary Suit the Division Bench at the same time clarified that it does not mean to hold that the Metropolitan has the jurisdiction over the day-to-day management of temporal affairs of Parish Churches. The Division Bench has also referred to the Mulanthuruthy Synod resolutions which say that the Parish Churches have a degree of autonomy with certain supervisory powers alone being vested in the Managing Committee of the Association or Catholicos or the Malankara Metropolitan, as the case may be." The clarification made by the Apex Court in para 141 that no declaration can be granted affecting the rights of Parish Churches, in their absence, is in the context of consideration of a question whether the properties held by the Malankara Parish Churches vest in the Catholicos/the Malankara Metropolitan/the Metropolitan of the concerned diocese, as the case may be. Therefore, the same is in the context of vesting of title of the properties of Parish Churches and not the status. Finally, in the said paragraph, their Lordships held that "the only observation that can be made herein is that the -9-1-1934 Constitution shall govern and regulate the affairs of the Parish Churches too, insofar as the said Constitution provides for the same." In that view of the matter, according to us, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the decision of the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitans case (supra) has been wrongly relied upon by the trial court, is not correct. 88. There is no conflict with the views taken in the judgment of Hon'ble Sahai, J. and Hon'ble Jeevan Reddy, J. on the issue of non- impleadment of individual Churches, as we will presently demonstrate. It is in the context of declaring the status of Parish Churches that Hon'ble Sahai, J. held that non-impleadment of individual Churches is not fatal and has no effect. It is in the context of considering a relief with respect to vesting of properties of Parish Churches in the Diocese or Metropolitan or Malankara Church that Hon'ble Jeevan Reddy, J. took the view that no relief can be granted without them in the party array. The situations were totally different. 89. In this case also, in the plaint no relief is sought that the properties of the Church vest in the parishioners or other bodies. Both sides were at issue on the question of system of administration of Parish, election and on the question whether it is Ext.A 1 Udambady or Ext.B 1 Constitution that governs the Church. Therefore, it is not a case where the plaintiffs have sought for a relief of declaration specifically with regard to the properties of the Church or about the vesting of the properties of the Church in a particular body. What is clear from the reliefs sought for, is that they are only seeking for enforcement of Ext.A 1 Udambady as regards the administration of the Church or in the alternative, to frame a scheme for the administration. In that view of the matter, according to us, there is no error committed by the trial court, by relying upon 1934 Constitution and the finding relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case (supra). 90. As we have already noticed, after the above judgment in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos, AIR 1959 SC 31 , there was truce in the entire Malankara Church including that of the first respondent Church. The truce as far as the first respondent Church continued upto 1974. Therefore, the conduct of Patriarch group after 1959 in not raising any objection with regard to the 1934 Constitution and lack of any evidence regarding the same will go against their case that Ext.A I Udambady continued to be in force with regard to the affairs of the Church. 91. Therefore, the conduct of Patriarch group after 1959 in not raising any objection with regard to the 1934 Constitution and lack of any evidence regarding the same will go against their case that Ext.A I Udambady continued to be in force with regard to the affairs of the Church. 91. Great reliance is placed in this context by Shri N. Sukumaran, learned Senior Counsel, of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.269/1960. The Church involved therein was St. George's Jacobite Syrian Christian Church, Puduppally. It was filed in 1119 M.E. (1943-44 AD). The plaintiff claimed that the right of administration of the Church and its properties vested in the Yogam. There was no written Constitution. The contesting defendants belonged to the Catholicos party. In para 7, the Division Bench observed, after referring to the judgments upto Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos's case, AIR 1959 SC 31 , that "the previous suits were concerned with the Jacobite Church as a whole and its properties, not with individual churches of the Jacobite faith or their properties excepting that the Cochin case was concerned with certain individual churches of which the suit Church was not one." In para 12, the finding rendered is that "the suit Church was an autonomous unit so far as temporal matters were concerned, the power of management being vested in trustees elected by the parishioners." It was further held that "in order to vest the Sabha with the power to frame a Constitution binding the suit Church it must first be shown that this autonomy was surrendered to the Sabha." Therein, Ext.P26 is the 1934 Constitution produced in this case. It was held that the Constitution was never accepted by the Edavaka Ycgam. Learned Senior Counsel sought support from these findings, to advance the case of the appellants. 92. We notice from para 8 of the judgment that both parties proceeded on the basis that the Church and its properties constituted a trust in favour of the parishioners of the Church. There was such a finding in an earlier suit, O.S. No.100/1091, brought by the parishioners against a misappropriating trustee. Such is not the situation here. The main plea of the defendants was that the Church and its properties do not belong to the parishioners, but to the Metropolitan. Herein, no such case has been pleaded. There was such a finding in an earlier suit, O.S. No.100/1091, brought by the parishioners against a misappropriating trustee. Such is not the situation here. The main plea of the defendants was that the Church and its properties do not belong to the parishioners, but to the Metropolitan. Herein, no such case has been pleaded. The finding in para 71 of the Apex Court judgment in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case (supra) is that the property of the Church vests in the endowment and not with the parishioners, which is relied upon by Shri S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, to contend that the Division Bench decision relied upon by Shri N. Sukumaran, learned Senior Counsel cannot hold good. Apart from the same, the said Division Bench judgment has been discussed by a later Division Bench in Moran Mar Baselios Marthorna Mathews I's case (1990 (2) KLT Supplement). 93. We will refer to the discussion in para 57 of the judgment in Mar Baselios Marthoma Mathews Iscase, 1990 (2) KLT Supplement which shows that reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the judgment in A.S. No.269/1960 (supra) which was produced as Ext.B322. After referring to the various findings in the judgment, the Division Bench has held as follows in para 59: "59. There is no contention before us that the findings in the above judgment are res judicata for the purpose of these cases, there cannot be such a contention since that suit related to a single parish only and the other parishers or the Malankara Association or the entire community were not represented in the suit. According to the learned single Judge the reasoning in the judgment could be followed. We have taken the view that copy of the draft Constitution must necessarily have been circulated among all the parish churches and had been published in the form of pamphlets and all the parishes had every opportunity to consider the provisions of the draft Constitution and take appropriate stand in the 1934 meeting, and the meeting unanimously approved the draft Constitution scrutinised by the Sub Committee to which besides the members of the Managing Committee, 34 persons present at the meeting had been elected. With great respect we are unable to agree that the parishes had no opportunity to consider or formulate or present their views in regard to the provisions of the draft Constitution. With great respect we are unable to agree that the parishes had no opportunity to consider or formulate or present their views in regard to the provisions of the draft Constitution. They had every opportunity to do so since they sent representatives to the meeting and the representatives unanimously adopted the draft Constitution. It is only reasonable to conclude that the representatives had authority from their churches, namely, parish general bodies to approve the draft Constitution. It is therefore not open to any parish or any segment of the Malankara community to contend that the 1934 Constitution was not validly or lawfully adopted." The Division Bench has disagreed with the views expressed by the earlier Division Bench in that judgment. The Division Bench was of the view that the Parish Churches and general bodies had every opportunity to send representatives and the representatives had unanimously adopted the draft Constitution. It was held that it was not open to any Parish or any segment of the Malankara community to contend that the 1934 Constitution was not validly or lawfully adopted. The said findings, in the context of this case, are significant and no reliance can therefore be placed on the judgment in A.S. No.269/1960. This is particularly so in the light of the findings we have already referred to, in the decisions of the Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos' case ( AIR 1959 SC 31 ) and P.M.A. Metropolitan's case ( AIR 1995 SC 2001 ) which have held that the 1934 Constitution has been validly adopted and the Parish Churches had been issued notices in the matter including notices in two newspapers. Therefore, we reject the argument raised by the learned Senior Counsel Shri N. Sukumaran based on the judgment in A.S. No.269/1960. 94. We will now deal with the argument raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendants who are supporting the appellants, Shri R.D. Shenoy, that the view of the minority judgment of Hon'ble R.M. Sahai, J. cannot be accepted since the majority view alone will prevail. Great reliance is placed on the observations of the learned author Shri H.M. Seervai in the third edition of the Constitution at page 2247. At page 2235 the learned author, in para 25.91 has discussed the decision of the Court of Appeal in In re Harper v. N.C.B., (1974) 2 W.L.R. 775 . Great reliance is placed on the observations of the learned author Shri H.M. Seervai in the third edition of the Constitution at page 2247. At page 2235 the learned author, in para 25.91 has discussed the decision of the Court of Appeal in In re Harper v. N.C.B., (1974) 2 W.L.R. 775 . The learned Author referred to the observations of Lord Denning on the doctrine of Precedents and has recored as follows: "Applying these principles, Lord Denning held that the actual decision of the House in favour of Dodd must be accepted as correct and the court could not accept any line of reasoning which would show it to be wrong. Therefore, the dissenting judgment of Lord Simon and Lord Salmon on the law could not be accepted and must be treated as wrong, because it led them to the wrong result. The reasoning of the other three judges must be accepted if the court could discover it, but Lord Denning held that it was not discoverable." Learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the majority view can be accepted and the reasoning of the judgment in Hon'ble Sahai, J. cannot be relied upon by the respondents. Para 25.89 at page 2234 was also brought to our notice. It was thus pointed out that the minority view as against the majority view, is of no avail. 95. The "Commentary on the Constitution of India" by Shri Durga Das Basu, page 6036 is also relied upon. Therein, the rationality of dissenting and concurrent judgments have been discussed. The following quotation from Chief Justice Hughes, has also been mentioned in the paragraph relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel: "A dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed Nor is this always in vain. In a number of cases dissenting opinions have in time become law. " 96. Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon para 31 of the judgment in Arun Kumar Aggarwal v. State of M.P. and others., AIR 2011 SC 3056 explaining the nature and scope of obiter dictum. In a number of cases dissenting opinions have in time become law. " 96. Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon para 31 of the judgment in Arun Kumar Aggarwal v. State of M.P. and others., AIR 2011 SC 3056 explaining the nature and scope of obiter dictum. It was held that "Obiter dictum is a mere observation or remark made by the Court by way of aid while deciding the actual issue before it. The mere casual statement or observation which is not relevant, pertinent or essential to decide the issue in hand does not form the part of the judgment of the Court and have no authoritative value. The expression of the personal view or opinion of the Judge is just a casual remark made whilst deviating from answering the actual issues pending before the Court. These casual remarks are considered or treated as beyond the ambit of the authoritative or operative part of the judgment." 97. Keeping in view the above, we will come to the judgment of Hon'ble R.M. Sahai, J., especially para 80 which is relied upon by Shri S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel to contend that this Court need not go into an interpretative process in the light of the observations made therein by Hon'ble Sahai, J. himself with regard to the conclusions in the respective judgments. Para 80 of the judgment reads as follows: "80. In a separate judgment written by Brother Jeevan Reddy, J., he has agreed, although for different reasons, that the creation of catholic ate in 1912 was valid and that the Constitution framed in 1934 was binding and it could not be assailed by the Patriarch Group, therefore the Patriarch of Antioch could not act on his own even in spiritual matters. He has also agreed that the excommunication of Catholico was invalid and the Malankara Church was episcopal in character to the extent it was so declared in 1934 Constitution which also governs the affairs of the Parish Churches, In respect of Humava canon he did not record any finding as according to him in view of subsequent developments it was not necessary to decide whether the canon filed by the Patriarch Group was authentic. He, in fact, has agreed with every conclusion reached on merits in my judgment. He, in fact, has agreed with every conclusion reached on merits in my judgment. The narrow difference has arisen on the power of this Court to direct any amendment in the Constitution framed by a Religious body and whether the fairness of such amendment can be judged by this Court. However, the direction issued by him in this regard in appeals arising out of suits does not make any difference so far as merits of the appeals are concerned." It will show that after referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Jeevan Reddy, J., the learned Judge was of the view that on the main points Hon'ble Justice Jeevan Reddy has agreed with every conclusion reached on merits in Hon'ble Sahai's Judgment. It was further observed as follows: "The narrow difference has arisen on the power of this Court to direct any amendment in the Constitution framed by a Religious body and whether the fairness of such amendment can be judged by this Court. However, the direction issued by him in this regard in appeals arising out of suits does not make any difference so far as merits of the appeals are concerned." Therefore, the said observations speak volumes and are significant in considering whether, on the merits, there is any difference of opinion between the two judgments and whether the judgment of Hon'ble Sahai, J. can be termed only as a minority judgment and cannot be referred to for any purpose. A comparison of paragraphs 76 and 142 of the judgment will show that on the merits the conclusions are identical. The conclusions in pars 76 sub para 3 mainly corresponds with para 142 (2), sub para 4 of para 76 is identical with the conclusions in sub para 9 of para 142. Sub para 4(c) of para 76 corresponds with sub para 142(5) and sub para 7 of para 76 corresponds with sub para 8 of para 142. 98. Further, in the light of para 80 of the judgment wherein the learned Judge has explained that the narrow difference was only in respect of the power of the court to direct any amendment in the Constitution framed by a religious body, we need not go into any other interpretative process. Therefore, we reject the contention as otherwise made by the learned Senior Counsel Shri R.D. Shenoy. 99. Therefore, we reject the contention as otherwise made by the learned Senior Counsel Shri R.D. Shenoy. 99. The judgment of the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan, AIR 1995 SC 2001 and the subsequent judgments rendered by the Apex Court have also been referred to by both sides to explain the ambit of the decree passed. In para 145 of the judgment in the above case, certain amendments to the relevant clauses of 1934 Constitution have been directed by the Apex Court and the Rule Committee was directed to place before the Apex Court within three months from the date of judgment, the draft amendments to the Constitution. It was directed that thereafter elections to the Malankara Association shall be held on the basis of the amended Constitution and the Association so elected shall be the Association for all purposes within the meaning of and for the purposes of the 1934 Constitution. The subsequent order passed dated 25.3.1996 has been reported in P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Marthoma Mathews, AIR 1996 SC 3121 . Therein, after referring to the proposals by both parties, the orders have been passed. In para 5, it is directed that the election of members of the Association and the Diocesan Assemblies shall take place within three months from the date of the said order on the basis of amended Articles 71 and 46. Certain directions were also issued with regard to the drafting of the decree. The corrections incorporated in the decree are evident from the order dated 5.2.1997 which is also reported in P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Marthoma Mathews, AIR 1997 SC 1034. Para 2 of the said order shows that in the earlier order one more sentence was inserted to the effect that "any and every person claiming to hold any office or post in this Church shall be bound by and shall swear allegiance to the 1934 Constitution." 100. The next important decision is Moran Mar Thoma Mathews v. Most Rev. Thomas Mar D. Metropolitan, 2002 (1) KLT 125 SC wherein an election was directed to be held to the Malankara Association for which the former Chief Justice V.S. Malimath was appointed as Observer. It was directed that the exercise should be completed on or before 3 1.3.2002 and the Observer was requested to submit a report before the Apex Court with regard to the conduct of election and execution of the decree. It was directed that the exercise should be completed on or before 3 1.3.2002 and the Observer was requested to submit a report before the Apex Court with regard to the conduct of election and execution of the decree. The election was thereafter held and the order passed by the Apex Court has been recorded in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Basselios Thomas I Catholicos v. Thomas Mar Athanasius, 2003 (1) KLT 10 , in para 20. By order dated 12.7.2002 the Apex Court declared as follows: "The Malankara Association as convened by the order of this Court dated 28th November, 2001 having decided by majority that Moran Mar Baselious Mar Thoma Mathews Il is the Malankara Metropolitan, this decision is declared final and binding and not subject to challenge in any Court or any other forum (as provided in the previous order dated 28th November, 2001 of this Court)". It will show that the election of Moran Mar Baselious Mar Thoma Mathews II as Malankara Metropolitan has been upheld and binding and not subject to challenge in any Court or any other forum. 101. Great support has been sought by learned Senior Counsel Shri R.D. Shenoy, from the observations of the Apex Court in paragraphs 114 and 115 of the judgment in S. R. Bommai's case, AIR 1994 SC 1918 . Para 114 is under the heading "Democracy and Secularism". 102. It is is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Shri R.D. Shenoy that when it is fundamental as far as the constitutional principles are concerned to uphold democracy, being a democratic society an election in the manner so as to enforce those democratic principles could be ordered by this Court. We have gone through paragraphs 114 to 116 of the above judgment wherein the Apex Court was considering the concept of democracy and its importance as far as the Constitution in India is concerned. But herein, going by the plaintiffs' case, we are considering a situation in the light of the pleadings of the parties where they are seeking for a relief for providing a scheme for administration of the Parish Church, or enforcement of Ext.A 1 Udambady. It is pointed out by Shri S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel that in Ext.A I Udambady no comparable provisions are there like the one in 1934 Constitution, for conducting an election to the managing committee. It is pointed out by Shri S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel that in Ext.A I Udambady no comparable provisions are there like the one in 1934 Constitution, for conducting an election to the managing committee. We have already discussed all the related and relevant aspects and therefore the reliance placed on S.R. Bomnzai's case, AIR 1994 SC 1918 cannot advance the plea of the plaintiffs and the respondents who are supporting the plaintiffs. 103. As we have already found, the truce after 1959 in the entire Church brought in unity between two factions and even in this case P. W.2 also admitted of such a truce and in the light of the documents produced by the third defendant including Exts.B4, B5 and. B5(a) as well as the declaration given by the first plaintiff along with Shri Cheria Pathrose, declaring allegiance to the 1934 Constitution, produced as Ext.B8, the conclusion arrived at by the trial judge in favour of defendants 1, 3 and 9 cannot be said to be wrong or unsustainable on any ground. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals upholding the judgment rendered by the trial court. The parties will bear their costs. We record our appreciation for the learned and lucid arguments addressed by the learned Senior Counsel and other learned counsel appearing on both sides.