Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3125 (MAD)

St. Georges Cathedral Trust v. V. Devasahayam

2015-09-21

S.TAMILVANAN

body2015
ORDER : S. Tamilvanan, J. 1. The Original Application in O.A. No. 943 of 2012 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff, under Order XIV Rule 8 of the High Court Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the third respondent or anyone claiming any right under him from acting as Clergy Trustee of the plaintiff Trust, pending disposal of the above suit. O.A. No. 944 of 2012 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff, under Order XIV Rule 8 of the High Court Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agents or anyone claiming any right under them from interfering with the plaintiff Trust's management and administration of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the above suit. 2. O.A. No. 272 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff, under Order XIV Rule 8 of the High Court Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the first respondent or anyone claiming any right under him for appointing anyone as a Trustee of the plaintiff Trust, without consulting the existing Trustees and following the provisions, as laid down in the "Rules for the Administration of the St. George's Cathedral Trust" filed as plaint document No. 3, pending disposal of the above suit. 3. O.A. No. 273 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff, under Order XIV Rule 8 of the High Court Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agents or anyone claiming any right under him from removing any of the existing Trustees of the plaintiff Trust, as it would be contrary to the provisions, as laid down in the "Rules for the Administration of the St. George's Cathedral Trust" filed as plaint document No. 3, pending disposal of the above suit? 4. George's Cathedral Trust" filed as plaint document No. 3, pending disposal of the above suit? 4. O.A. No. 1003 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff, under Order XIV Rule 8 of the High Court Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Sections94 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the first and third respondents or anyone acting under them from denying the serving of Holy Communion to the existing Trustees, viz., (1) Mr. M.M. Rajendran, Senior Trustee; (2) Mr. D.S. Luther, Secretary; (3) Ms. M.E. Felix, Trustee and (4) Mrs. Lalitha Sukumar, Trustee and their respective spouses in the Holy Communion services, held at St. George's Cathedral Church, No. 224, Cathedral Road, Chennai - 600 086 or in any other Church under the control of the first respondent, pending disposal of the above suit. 5. A. No. 1764 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff, under Order XIV Rule 8 of the High Court Original Side Rules read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order, to permit the applicant/plaintiff to amend the plaint by adding the following prayer in Paragraph 16 and 16(d) and amend the existing paragraph 16(d) and (e) as 16(e) and (f): "d) For permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from appointing anyone as a Trustee of the Plaintiff Trust, without consulting the existing Trustees and following the provisions, as laid down in the "Rules for the Administration of the St. George's Cathedral Trust" filed as Plaint Document No. 3." 6. A. No. 2981 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff, under Order XIV Rule 8 of the High Court Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rule 2A and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order to punish the third respondent for willful disobedience of the order, dated 02.07.2013 made in O.A. No. 944 of 2012 in C.S. No. 731 of 2012 by detaining him in civil prison. 7. O.A. No. 2982 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff, under Order XIV Rule 8 of the High Court Original Side Rules read with Order XXVI Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the St. 7. O.A. No. 2982 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff, under Order XIV Rule 8 of the High Court Original Side Rules read with Order XXVI Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the St. George's Cathedral Trust Office at No. 224, Cathedral Road, Chennai - 600 086 and to remove the locks put up thereon with police aid, if necessary to enable the applicant to have access to the Trust Office and further, direct the said Advocate-Commissioner to take note of the physical features and inventory of the files/registers and list the other movables kept in the Trust office and submit his report to this Court. 8. A. No. 3473 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff, under Order XIV Rule 8 of the High Court Original Side Rules read with Sections 94 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order of interim stay of the operation of the letters, dated 28.06.2013 sent by the first respondent to the existing Trustees, viz., (1) Mr. M.M. Rajendra, Senior Trustee; (2) Mr. D.S. Luther, Secretary; (3) Ms. M.E. Felix, Trustee and (4) Ms. Lalitha Sukumar, Trustee, pending disposal of the above suit. 9. A. No. 5363 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff, under Order XIV Rule 8 of the High Court Original Side Rules read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order, to permit the applicant/plaintiff to amend the plaint by adding the name of "Prof. D.S. Luther", after the word Secretary in the short and long cause title and in the verification wherever found in the plaint in the above suit. 10. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as their ranking in the suit. 11. The plaintiff, St. George's Cathedral Church, rep., by its Secretary, filed the suit in C.S. No. 731 of 2013 as against defendants 1 to 3 viz., (i) Rt. Rev. Dr. V. Devasahayam, Bishop in Madras; (ii) The Diocese of Madras, rep., by its Secretary and (iii) Rev. 11. The plaintiff, St. George's Cathedral Church, rep., by its Secretary, filed the suit in C.S. No. 731 of 2013 as against defendants 1 to 3 viz., (i) Rt. Rev. Dr. V. Devasahayam, Bishop in Madras; (ii) The Diocese of Madras, rep., by its Secretary and (iii) Rev. S. Immanuel Devakadatcham, Presbyter in charge for the following reliefs: "(i) for a declaration declaring that the appointment of the third defendant by the first defendant as Clergy Trustee of the plaintiff Trust is invalid, null and void; (ii) for a permanent injunction restraining the third defendant or anyone claiming any right under him from acting as Clergy Trustee of the plaintiff Trust; (iii) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents or anyone claiming any right under them from interfering with the plaintiff trust's management and administration of the suit schedule property; and for costs." 12. The plaintiff herein is stated as a public religious and charitable Trust, having been created by the Deed of Trust, dated 09.02.1821 by the United Company of Merchants of England for the purpose of possessing and maintaining the church, other buildings and properties belongs to St. George's Church, which later became St. George's Cathedral Church in the land situated in Old Survey No. 3414, Mylapore Village, later R.S. No. 63 and now T.S. No. 63/1 and 63/2, Block No. 3, measuring totally about 684000 sq.ft or 11 1/4 cawnies or about 285 grounds. The Trustees of the Plaintiff Trust have been rendering service for the past two centuries to the Church and administering the properties and they have been functioning, as per the rules in the administration of the plaintiff trust, which came to be adopted by the Trust at their meeting. 13. The applicant/plaintiff has stated that the trustees have been functioning independently, as the suit property has been vested with them by the Trust Deed and they have to fulfil the objects of the Trust Deed in administering and managing the said properties for the benefit of the Church. They have further stated that the trustees are also maintaining separate books of accounts relating to the trust properties and its income and expenditure and its accounts are annually audited and income-tax returns are filed in the name of the plaintiff Trust. Though the members of the congregation belonging to St. They have further stated that the trustees are also maintaining separate books of accounts relating to the trust properties and its income and expenditure and its accounts are annually audited and income-tax returns are filed in the name of the plaintiff Trust. Though the members of the congregation belonging to St. George's Cathedral Church are members of the Church of South India and coming under the second defendant, the plaintiff Trust is an independent body vested with the suit property and the trustees act in the interest of the Trust to safeguard its properties for common use of the Trust. 14. It is stated by the plaintiff that patta for the suit land stands in the name of the plaintiff Trust as issued in 1993. When the plaintiff Trust decided to restore their church building, which is a heritage building for the bicentenary celebration to be held in 2015, they sent a letter dated 16.11.2011 to the first defendant informing about the steps taken by the plaintiff for restoration of the church building and also seeking financial assistance from the second defendant of which the first defendant is the head and as the finance required was huge, seeking the guidance and cooperation of the first defendant. However, there was no reply from the first defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiff also sent a reminder to the first defendant informing about the formation of the restoration committee to restore the church building and also creating a separate fund called St. George's Cathedral Restoration Fund and also sought for financial help from the second defendant. 15. It is further stated by the applicant/plaintiff that in April 2012, the plaintiff came to know that the second defendant under the leadership of the first defendant during 1999-2001 has changed the name in the revenue records of the Government regarding the ownership of the land in respect of T.S. No. 63/1, Block 3 of Mylapore Village, Triplicane Mylapore Taluk without any notice to the plaintiff Trust which has been the owner of the said land by getting patta in the name of Madras Diocesan Trust Association and the defendants 1 and 2, had changed the name in the revenue records surreptitiously was objected to by the plaintiff Trust and hence, they filed a revision petition before the DRO for effecting the rectification of name to the plaintiff Trust for T.S. No. 63/1. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff submitted that at the instance of the first defendant, the defendants are colluding to act against the Trust and questioning the powers and functions of the trustees, with the view that they are subordinates and do not have any power vested with them under the Trust Deed in respect of the suit property. 16. He further argued that by letter dated 10.5.2012 sent to the first defendant, the Trust demanded arrears of rent to be paid by the second defendant to the Trust and also requested them to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the Trust. But, there was no response for the same. Subsequently, the first defendant called for a meeting with the trustees of the plaintiff on 24.5.2012 and in the said meeting, the first defendant expressed displeasure with the trustees especially the senior trustee in going to the revenue department relating to the patta and writing of letter to the American Consulate by the Trust. 17. It is further contended by letter dated 2.7.2012, the first defendant questioned the appointment of M.M. Rajendran as Senior Trustee by the Trust saying that it was against the constitution of the Trust and called for some information and by reply dated 5.7.2012, the Trust explained to the first defendant that the trustees had unanimously elected M.M. Rajendran as the Senior Trustee and the first defendant himself had requested the same to the Secretary of the Trust in view of his experience and stature and that the first defendant had announced before the Cathedral congregation after the installation of M.M. Rajendran as trustee, the trustees have agreed to make him the Senior Trustee. But the first defendant, who was having a personal vendetta against the Senior Trustee of the Trust and the third defendant at the instance of the first defendant removed the designation of Senior Trustee against the name of M.M. Rajendran and put his name in the last in the Cathedral Chimes of August 2012 with a mala fide intention to insult and defame his name. The first defendant has also instructed the third defendant not to transfer the funds resolved at the Special General Body Meeting on 22.4.2012 to the restoration fund account of the plaintiff Trust in order to stall the said work in spite of reminders by the members of the church and the plaintiff Trust. 18. The first defendant has also instructed the third defendant not to transfer the funds resolved at the Special General Body Meeting on 22.4.2012 to the restoration fund account of the plaintiff Trust in order to stall the said work in spite of reminders by the members of the church and the plaintiff Trust. 18. Learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff would submit that the trustees of the plaintiff Trust were firm in retaining M.M. Rajendran as Senior Trustee, hence, the first defendant only with a view to jeopardize the smooth functioning of the plaintiff Trust has unilaterally sent a letter dated 6.10.2012 to the third defendant appointing him as Clergy Trustee of St. George's Cathedral with immediate effect by virtue of his office as Presbyter-in-charge of the said church and marked a copy to the plaintiff. The appointment of the third defendant is in total violation of Rules 5. a to 5. c of the Trust Rules and the first defendant has no authority whatsoever to make such appointment without looking into the eligibility criteria and the consultation required to be made with the existing trustees for appointing a new trustee and due weight age being given for the opinion of the existing trustees. 19. It is further submitted that the plaintiff, at their meeting held on 11.10.2012, considered the said letter dated 6.10.2012 sent by the first defendant to the third defendant for appointing the third defendant as clergy Trustee and passed an unanimous resolution as follows: "Unanimously resolved to inform the Bishop that the Rules for Administration of St. George's Trust do not provide for a Clergy Trustee and the rules for the appointment of the trustees set out under rule 5 have not been followed in this appointment. Besides Rev. Immanuel Devakadatcham does not satisfy the qualifications prescribed in Rule 5(a). The appointment is therefore invalid and ab initio void. It was decided unanimously to inform the Bishop that the existing trustees object to this appointment under Rule 5(c) and request that the appointment should be cancelled with immediate effect." 20. Besides Rev. Immanuel Devakadatcham does not satisfy the qualifications prescribed in Rule 5(a). The appointment is therefore invalid and ab initio void. It was decided unanimously to inform the Bishop that the existing trustees object to this appointment under Rule 5(c) and request that the appointment should be cancelled with immediate effect." 20. On the side of the applicant/plaintiff, it is argued that the said resolution was communicated to the first defendant by letter dated 11.10.2012 and the first defendant sent a letter dated 12.10.2012 stating that the Rules of the Trust do not apply in the case of appointment of ex officio Clergy Trustee and that it stands and that the third defendant will preside over the meetings of the plaintiff Trust. The plaintiff by their letter dated 16.10.2012 have once again reiterated that there is no such provision for ex officio clergy Trustee under the rules and it is a clear violation of the rules and so the Trust Board decided not to accept the said appointment. 21. It is seen that this Court (R. SUDHA-KAR, J.), by order, dated 02.07.2013 made in O.A. Nos. 944 of 2012 and 273 of 2013 granted the relief of interim injunction, which reads as follows: "10. There will be an order of interim injunction against the respondents, their men, agents or anyone claiming any right under them from interfering with the plaintiff Trusts management and administration and also restraining the first respondent or anyone claiming any right under him from removing any of the existing Trustees of the plaintiff Trust, pending disposal of the above suit. The parties are directed to maintain peace in the Church and cause no further law and order situation." 22. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first and second respondents, it is stated that the Church of South India is a united Church bringing together four protestant mainline historical Churches - The Anglican, the Methodist, the Presbyterian and the Congregationalists. The title of the Cathedral property vests with the CSITA through a Deed of Appointment by Indian Church Trust, dated 04.10.1983 and the Trustees have been appointed to the Cathedral by the Bishop in Madras to assist the Pastorate Committee in the area of upkeep and maintenance of the Cathedral Building and the adjoining property. The applicant has been appointed as one of the Trustees of the St. The applicant has been appointed as one of the Trustees of the St. George's Cathedral by the Bishop in Madras of the CSI on various dates to carry on the duty of preservation of the property belonging to the Church and to maintain and keep it in good order. 23. It is further stated that when the Bishop invited and appointed Mr. M.M. Rajendran, it was made very clear to him that the property vests with the CSITA and the work of the trustees was only to upkeep and maintain the buildings and the property, as it is reflected in the Bishop's letter to the former Senior Trustee, Mr. F.V.N. Paul, dated 05.08.2010. The first respondent had appealed to the applicant to sort out the differences among themselves. Trustees have written to the Tahsildar and the District Revenue Officer against the Diocese, without the knowledge of the first respondent, dragging the Diocesan officials for enquiry at the respective offices. At the Trustees meeting with the Bishop on 24.05.2012, the Trustees claimed that they have the original patta for the property, which stands in the name of St. Goerge's Cathedral Trust. The first respondent had asked the Trustees to furnish a copy of the original patta, but till date, the Trustees have not furnished a copy of the patta. The old Trustees of the plaintiffs, who were already removed have opened a Bank Account in the name of St. George's Cathedral Restoration Fund, without the approval of Pastorate Committee, ignoring the fact that all the affairs of the Cathedral comes entirely under the Pastorate Committee of the St. George's Cathedral as well as the Diocese of Madras. 24. The said previous Trustees have also violated the rules and procedure concerning undertaking any renovation, restoration or construction work. The projects undertaken in different Churches need the approval of the Diocese. The said previous Trustees have conveyed their intention for the restoration of the Cathedral. The Bishop referred this matter to the Diocesan Property Committee and the Diocesan Finance Committee, at its meeting on 16.03.2012. The decision of these Committees was conveyed in the said previous Trustees by the Treasures in his letter, dated 05.05.2012, which reads as follows: "After discussion it was resolved - (1) to welcome the efforts of the Cathedral Trust for the renovation of St. The decision of these Committees was conveyed in the said previous Trustees by the Treasures in his letter, dated 05.05.2012, which reads as follows: "After discussion it was resolved - (1) to welcome the efforts of the Cathedral Trust for the renovation of St. George's Cathedral Building, (2) to ask the Cathedral Trustees to send the estimate of renovation of the Cathedral Building to the Diocese to be scrutinized by the Diocesan Consultant, J. Dorairaj, (3) to authorize the Officers of the Madras Diocesan Council to give permission to the Trustees to raise funds for renovation after scrutiny, (4) to ask the Cathedral Trustees to get prior approval for the work undertaken by them form the Diocesan Property and Finance Committees." 25. The Constitution provides the Bishop with disciplinary power, including ex-communication, which reads as follows: "a. Article 16(d) - Any adult or communicant member who disturbs the peace of the church and creates dissension within the Pastorate leading to disturbance in the congregation, working against the interest of the church and the Diocese and acts in violation of the resolution of the Diocesan Executive Committee could be debarred from holding office or disciplined suitably even to the extent of ex-communication by the Bishop of the Diocese..." Those members disciplined are not entitled to the privileges of membership such as participation in the Holy Communion, participation in the life of the Church and in the Governance of the Church. The privileges of suspended members of CSI are restored only when the suspension is revoked." 26. It is seen that the third respondent, adopts the counter affidavit filed by the first and second respondents, but since the applicant has raised some averments and allegations against him, he has filed separate counter affidavit, which has to be treated as part and parcel of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first and second respondents. 27. In the counter filed by the third respondent, he has averred that initiating disciplinary action, only in the rarest of the rare cases in the Church. In St. Goerge's Cathedral, though Trustees were removed by the Bishop, who is the appointing authority, none of the members were suspended from the primary membership of the Church, at least during last 50 years. In St. Goerge's Cathedral, though Trustees were removed by the Bishop, who is the appointing authority, none of the members were suspended from the primary membership of the Church, at least during last 50 years. The four trustees were removed as Trustees and also suspended from the primary membership of the Church, because of actions which were detrimental to the interest of the Church and were a potential of dividing the congregation spreading disharmony and division. However, the Constitution provides for making a request to the Bishop to reconsider the disciplinary action, which reads thus: "Article 60(b) - Any such member against whom the order of punishment including ex-communication is passed, may seek to revoke the order, if he satisfies the Bishop that he had acted in ignorance or by mistake or for any other good and sufficient reason and the Bishop, if satisfied about the bonafide nature of the request can revoke or modify the order or punishment or ex-communication and restore him the privileges as member of the CSI." 28. In the suit, the plaintiff, who is the applicant in all the applications has sought the following reliefs, apart from the cost of the suit: "a. For a declaration declaring that the appointment of the third defendant by the first defendant as Clergy Trustee of the plaintiff Trust is invalid and null and void. b. For a permanent injunction restraining the third defendant or anyone claiming any right under him from acting as Clergy Trustee of the plaintiff Trust. c. For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their men or agents or anyone claiming any right under them from interfering with the plaintiff Trust's management and administration of the suit schedule property." 29. In the cause of action paragraph of the plaint, the applicant/plaintiff has averred that the plaintiff trust has owned the property and the trustees have been managing and administering the same for the benefit of St. George's Cathedral Trust, which was specifically denied by the respondents, stating that the applicant/plaintiff has no right or authority to seek the relief, as prayed for in the suit or in the applications. In the counter filed by the first respondent, he has stated in paragraph 25 as follows: The Constitution provides the Bishop with disciplinary power including ex-communication. George's Cathedral Trust, which was specifically denied by the respondents, stating that the applicant/plaintiff has no right or authority to seek the relief, as prayed for in the suit or in the applications. In the counter filed by the first respondent, he has stated in paragraph 25 as follows: The Constitution provides the Bishop with disciplinary power including ex-communication. a. Article 16(d) "Any adult or communicant member who disturbs the peace of the Church and creates dissension within the Pastorate leading to disturbance in the congregation, working against the interest of the church and the Diocese and acts in violation of the resolution of the Diocesan Executive Committee could be debarred from holding office or disciplined suitable even to the extent of ex-communication by the Bishop of the Diocese..." Those members disciplined are not entitled to the privileges of membership such as participation in the Holy Communion, participation in the life of the Church and in the Governance of the Church. The privileges of suspended members of CSI are restored only when the suspension is revoked." 30. On a perusal of the copies of the documents filed under Order 7 Rule 14(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that the applicant is not entitled to seek the relief, stating him as Secretary Trustee of St. George's Cathedral Trust against the Bishop in Madras, Church of South India, the Diocese of Madras, Rep by its Secretary and the Presbyter in charge of St. George's Cathedral, who are the superior authorities of the Church of South India at Chennai, it being a Religious Trust. 31. When there is no prima facie material available in favour of the applicant/plaintiff to seek the remedy against and the Bishop in Madras, Church of South India, Chennai and the Secretary, Church of South India and another, merely by making certain allegations, the applicant/plaintiff cannot seek interim orders in the nature of interim injunction restraining the third respondent or any one claiming right under him from acting as Clergy Trustee of the plaintiff Trust or from interfering with the plaintiff's Trust management and administration of the suit property. Similarly, restraining the first respondent or any one claiming right under him to appoint any one as Trustee of the plaintiff's Trust, without consulting the existing Trustees and other reliefs, including an interim order to punish the third respondent, alleging willful disobedience of an order. Similarly, restraining the first respondent or any one claiming right under him to appoint any one as Trustee of the plaintiff's Trust, without consulting the existing Trustees and other reliefs, including an interim order to punish the third respondent, alleging willful disobedience of an order. Without prima facie establishing the rights of the applicant/plaintiff, he cannot raise any plea against the respondent and sought interim injunctions. 32. It is not in dispute that St. George Cathedral Deed of Trust, dated 09.02.1821 is the primary document relating to St. George Cathedral Trust affixed with the common seal of the East India Company by the authority of the Governor in Council of Fort St. George in the presence of Hy. Chamier, Chief Secretary to Government. Subsequently, the Indian Church Act, 1927 came into effect. The second schedule as per list of Church of Diocese of Madras was also governed by the said Act, apart from other Diocese in the country, such as Diocese of Calcutta, Diocese of Nagpur, Diocese of Assam and the Act governs the Diocese of Rangoon also, as per the schedule. 33. As per the copy of the document filed relating to rules for administration of the St. George Cathedral Church, Chennai-8, which reads from page 38 to 44 of the typed set of papers filed by the applicant/plaintiff, the preamble of the St. George Cathedral Trust reads as follows: "The St. Georges Cathedral Trust, Madras is a Trust founded by the United Company of Merchants of England, trading to the East Indies, in the year 1816, when the church and the lands adjacent thereto were sold to the Trust by the United Company of Merchants. Subsequently, when one of the Trustees died, the United Company of Merchants revoked the earlier conveyance of 06.01.1816 and reconveyed the properties to a new Board of Trustees for a certain consideration, on 09.02.1821. Subsequently, the East India Company were exercising the powers of appointment and removal of Trustees, which later became vested with the Governor General of the Presidency of Madras. As the procedure for the appointment of Trustees had become impracticable after India became a Sovereign Republic, the power of appointing Trustees to the St. Georges Cathedral Trust, came to be exercised by the Bishop in Madras of the Church of South India. As the procedure for the appointment of Trustees had become impracticable after India became a Sovereign Republic, the power of appointing Trustees to the St. Georges Cathedral Trust, came to be exercised by the Bishop in Madras of the Church of South India. Whereas the Trustees felt that proper rules should be framed for the induction of Trustees, conduct of the affairs of the Trust, the application of the funds of the Trust for the advancement of the objects of the Trust and matters connected therewith, the Trustees at their meeting held on 2nd February 1991 have adopted these Rules." 34. As per rule 5(b), the appointment of the Trustees shall be made by the Bishop in consultation with the existing Trustees. Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff submitted that the applicant/plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief, however, Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the Bishop in Madras, Church of South India is the appointing authority, similarly, against the Diocese of Madras, represented by its Secretary, Church of Sough India, the relief sought for in the suit as well as in the Interlocutory Applications would not be legally sustainable. He further contended that the amendment application in A. No. 1764 of 2013 is not legally maintainable, since allowing the application would change the cause of action and the nature of the suit. According to him, if need be, the applicant/plaintiff would file separate suit and cannot change the cause of action and the nature of the suit, by way of filing a petition to amend the plaint. It was also argued that only lay trustees were in the Diocese of Trustees and the rules relating to the office and duties have been clearly stated by the Bishop's Chaplin on 12.03.1875. In support of his contention, he relied on the rules relating to the Office and Duties of the Lay Trustees in the Diocese of Madras available at page number 11 of the typed set of papers filed by the first respondent. 35. The Madras Diocese Trust Association was incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1930 on the 25th Day of February, 1927, for which the copy of the Certificate of Incorporation was produced. 35. The Madras Diocese Trust Association was incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1930 on the 25th Day of February, 1927, for which the copy of the Certificate of Incorporation was produced. The Articles of Association of the Madras Diocese Trust Association registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1930 is also produced, wherein it reads that the Bishop in Madras (hereinafter referred to as "the Bishop") or his absence from the Diocese his legally appointed Commissary and Treasurer of the Diocese of Madras, shall be Ex-officio members". 36. The extract from Anglican Church Register of 1922 of the Government of India handed over to the Church of South India, Diocese of Madras, which reads that the Trustees have been declared by the Government to be Lay Trustees also, so that the correct designation of the Trustees is "Trustees and Lay Trustees". The Lay Trustees were appointed by the Government, on the recommendation of the Bishop, the Clerical Trustees are ex-officio Trustees by virtue of their appointment as Cathedral Chaplains. 37. As per the communication from the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, dated 23.04.1949, certain Anglican Trust, being maintained at the state expenses, did not find a place in the second schedule in the Indian Church Act, 1927 as shown in Annexure-I to the letter, which would also be transferred to the Indian Church Trustees with effect from 01.04.1948. It is crystal clear that the Secretary of the St. George Cathedral Trust, Chennai, has to keep or cause to be kept all records, documents of title, securities and other documents. He can record and hold the minutes of the meeting of the Trust. He can also hold additional charge of Senior Trustee in the absence of such trustee, however, the rules does not say that he is empowered to file a petition to seek injunction against the Bishop in Madras, Secretary, Diocese of Madras, by way of filing a suit. It cannot be disputed that amendments in the Rules cannot be made against the Constitutional provisions of the Church. 38. This Court, by its order, dated 12.12.2013, has held that the plea of the respondents/defendants to dismiss the suit, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as not sustainable and accordingly, dismissed the Application, hence, again the question cannot be raised before this Court, without challenging the order. 38. This Court, by its order, dated 12.12.2013, has held that the plea of the respondents/defendants to dismiss the suit, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as not sustainable and accordingly, dismissed the Application, hence, again the question cannot be raised before this Court, without challenging the order. However, based on the averments and materials, the Court has to consider, whether the applicant/plaintiff would be entitled to seek injunction against Bishop, Secretary of the Diocese of Madras, stating them as Secretary representing St. George Cathedral Trust. 39. The applicant/plaintiff has not disputed the status of the first respondent as Bishop of Madras, similarly, the second respondent is the Secretary, Diocese of Madras, representing the Church of South India. 40. It is specifically stated that old Trustees of the plaintiffs, who were already removed have opened a Bank Account in the name of St. George's Cathedral Restoration Fund, without the approval of Pastorate Committee, ignoring the fact that all the affairs of the Cathedral comes entirely under the Pastorate Committee of the St. George's Cathedral as well as the Diocese of Madras. It is clear that the projects undertaken in different Churches need approval of Diocese. The Bishop referred this matter to the Diocesan Property Committee and the Diocesan Finance Committee, at its meeting and the disciplinary power is vested with the Bishop, the first respondent/Dl herein, as per Article16(d) of the Constitution. 41. It is seen from the documents filed and the advanced by both sides, which would make it clear that the applicant/plaintiff cannot claim any injunction against the Bishop in Madras, the first respondent and the Diocese of Madras, represented by its Secretary, as the same would be superior body of the Religious Trust. The applicant/plaintiff cannot claim supremacy over the respondents 1 and 2, to seek the relief representing the Plaintiff Trust, as its Secretary and even, as per the averments and the supporting documents, the same could be only decided in the suit. Based on the averments, I am of the view that the applicant/plaintiff is not entitled to seek injunction, as prayed for. Similarly, seeking permission to amend the plaint would change the cause of action and change the character of the suit, which is not permissible, as per Order XIV Rule 8 of the High Court Original Side Rules read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 42. Similarly, seeking permission to amend the plaint would change the cause of action and change the character of the suit, which is not permissible, as per Order XIV Rule 8 of the High Court Original Side Rules read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 42. The applicant/plaintiff has not established any prima facie case, balance of convenience is also not in favour of the applicant/plaintiff. In the aforesaid circumstances, the interim injunction already granted by this Court on 02.07.2013 in O.A. Nos. 944 of 2012 and 273 of 2013 shall stand vacated and accordingly, all the applications are liable to be dismissed. In the result, as already decided by this Court on 12.12.2013, A. No. 2870 of 2013 filed by the applicant/plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC can be decided at the time of trial by framing necessary issues. The remaining applications in O.A. Nos. 943 and 944 of 2012, O.A. Nos. 272, 273 and 1003 of 2013 and A. Nos. 1764, 2870 2981, 2982, 3473 and 5363 of 2013 are dismissed, subject to the result of the suit. However, it is open to the applicant/plaintiff to seek an order for early disposal of the suit, according to law.