JUDGMENT : ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. 1. R.S.A. No. 197 of 2019 arises out of the judgment and decree of the Additional District Court, Kottayam in A.S. No. 174 of 2012, arising out of the judgment and decree of the Munsiffs' Court, Ettumanoor in O.S. No. 130 of 2008. R.F.A. No. 174 of 2010 arises out of the judgment and decree of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam in O.S. No. 31 of 2002. R.F.A. No. 310 of 2010 arises out of the judgment and decree of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam in O.S. No. 38 of 1999. The respective original suits were filed in representative capacity, for the governance of St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church (Pallipratchu Church), Neelimangalam; St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, Marygiri and Sehiyon Church, Onakkoor, which are stated to be Parish Churches of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. By the impugned judgments and decrees those original suits are dismissed for want of leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘the Code’). The perpetual fight between the Patriarch faction and the Catholicos faction for managing the affairs of Parish Churches of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church culminated in the judgment of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese vs. St. Peter's and St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church, (2017) 15 SCC 333 . The appellants assail the impugned judgments and decrees, mainly relying on the decision of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese. Since common issues are raised, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. R.S.A. No. 197 of 2019 - The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 130 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiffs' Court, Ettumanoor and the appellant in A.S. No. 174 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Court, Kottayam. Going by the averments in the plaint, St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church (Pallipratchu Church), Neelimangalam, Kottayam, situated in plaint A schedule property is a constituent Parish Church of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, liable to be governed under the 1934 Constitution, as held by the Apex Court in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan vs. Moran Mar Marthoma, (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 286. The Church, which is in Kottayam Diocese, is S. No. 570 in the schedule of 1064 Churches in O.S. No. 4 of 1979, which culminated in the decision in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan. P.M.A. Metropolitan vs. Moran Mar Marthoma, (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 286. The Church, which is in Kottayam Diocese, is S. No. 570 in the schedule of 1064 Churches in O.S. No. 4 of 1979, which culminated in the decision in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan. The appellant/plaintiff, who has been appointed as the Vicar of the Church by Geevarghese Mar Ivanaos, the Diocesan Metropolitan of Kottayam, by the order dated 26.12.2007, filed O.S. No. 130 of 2008, alleging that the 1st defendant (the 1st respondent in this appeal) is presently functioning as Priest in the Church without any lawful authority, who is one among the persons who disowned the 1934 Constitution. The said defendant is acting without any order of appointment by the Diocesan Metropolitan of Kottayam. As per the 1934 Constitution, no one except the appellant or his successor and Priest Assistants appointed by the Diocesan Metropolitan of Kottayam has the right to function as Priest in the Church. In the suit, which was filed along with an application under Order I Rule 8 of the Code, defendants 2 to 7 (respondents 2 to 7 in this appeal) are impleaded representing all erstwhile Parishioners of the Church, who are opposing the governance of Church under the 1934 Constitution and supporting the 1st defendant in his illegal functioning as Priest of the Church. The plaintiff contended that, as per Sections 12 and 15 of the 1934 Constitution, a lawfully appointed Vicar is the President of the Parish Assembly, who has to convene the Parish Assembly. Vicar is the President of the Parish Managing Committee, who has to convene the same, as provided under Sections 26 and 28. As per Section 39, the Vicar is the Joint Steward of the assets of the Parish Church. As per Section 40, the right to appoint and remove Parish Vicar and Priest vests with the Diocesan Metropolitan. In the suit, the plaintiff sought for a decree declaring the plaintiff, his successors and Priest Assistants appointed by Geevarghese Mar Ivanaos, the Diocesan Metropolitan of Kottayam and his successors, as the lawfully appointed Vicar and Priest Assistants alone are entitled to function as Priest in St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church in plaint A schedule property; a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their supporters from preventing and obstructing the plaintiff, his lawfully appointed successors and Priest Assistants from functioning as Vicar and Priest of St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church in plaint A schedule property; a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their supporters from preventing and obstructing the plaintiff, his lawfully appointed successors and Priest Assistants from functioning as Vicar and Priest of St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church, Neelimangalam in plaint A schedule property; and a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their supporters from demolishing the existing Church or other structures in plaint A schedule property, or making any alterations or modifications to the same and from effecting any new constructions in plaint A schedule property. 2.1. Defendants 1 and 3 filed written statement contending that the plaintiff is not a member of plaint A schedule Church and he never acted as Priest of that Church at any time. Geevarghese Mar Ivanaos, who alleged to have appointed the plaintiff as a Priest of the Church in plaint A schedule property, never functioned or officiated as Diocesan Metropolitan, who has no authority or jurisdiction to appoint any Vicar for the Church, which is an independent Parish Church of Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church, which is not governed by the 1934 Constitution. According to defendants 1 and 3, the Church was established in 1915 AD in the property gifted by one Pothen Korulla, Mangattukayil to the Jacobite Community, whose ecclesiastical head was Patriarch of Antioch. The intention of the said gift deed was to construct a Church fully belonging to Jacobite Syrian Christian, who accepted the Patriarch of Antioch as the religious head, and it was intended to serve the religious need of the Jacobite Syrian Community coming under the Holy See of Patriarch of Antioch. The Church is a public religious Church and therefore, a suit of this nature can be filed only with necessary leave and sanction under Section 92 of the Code. Defendants 1 and 3 contended that the Church is an independent religious trust, which is not bound by the 1934 Constitution. The Church was not a party in 1995 and 2001 decisions of the Apex Court and the mere fact that the name of the church is included in the schedule of 1064 Churches in O.S. No. 4 of 1974, which culminated in the decision in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan, will not make it party to that case. Defendants 2 and 4 to 7 filed written statement raising similar contentions, followed by additional written statements by defendants 1 to 7. P.M.A. Metropolitan, will not make it party to that case. Defendants 2 and 4 to 7 filed written statement raising similar contentions, followed by additional written statements by defendants 1 to 7. The defendants filed I.A. No. 690 of 2010 with a prayer to consider the maintainability of the suit, on the ground of lack of leave under Section 92 of the Code, as a preliminary issue, and to decide the same before other issues are taken up for consideration. In the said interlocutory application, the plaintiff filed counter affidavit, contending that the suit is maintainable. 2.2. After considering the rival contentions on the question of maintainability, the trial court by the judgment dated 10.04.2012 held that the nature of reliefs in the suit is such that the jurisdiction of the court is barred under Section 92 of the Code. By filing the suit, directions of the court are sought by the plaintiff for administration of the affairs of plaint A schedule Church, which is a public trust. If the reliefs sought for are allowed, the consequence will be a change of de facto administration of the Church. Merely because the suit contains declaratory reliefs, it will not take the suit outside the ambit of Section 92 of the Code. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed O.S. No. 130 of 2008, as barred under Section 92 of the Code. 2.3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S. No. 130 of 2008, the plaintiff filed A.S. No. 174 of 2012 before the Additional District Court, Kottayam. The said appeal ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 23.11.2018 of the First Appellate Court, holding that the trial court rightly dismissed the suit as not maintainable, in the absence of leave under Section 92 of the Code and there is no necessity to interfere with that finding. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff is before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. 2.4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff is before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. 2.4. On 18.02.2019, when this appeal came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondents on the following substantial questions of law: “(i) When the relief sought for in the suit was to vindicate the personal right of the Vicar, the plaintiff, whether the courts below were justified in holding that the suit is hit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure? (ii) After the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Varghese's Case 2017 (3) KLT 261 and Mathews Mar Koorilos (dead) and Another vs. M. Pappy (dead) and Another, 2018 (3) KLT 990 the courts below were justified in permitting parellel administration in the Church? (iii) When the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese's case held that 1934 Constitution is the scheme for administration of Malankara Churches and suits are not hit under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure, whether the courts below were justified in holding otherwise?” 3. R.F.A. No. 174 of 2010:- The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 31 of 2002 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam. Going by the averments in the plaint, St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, Marygiri, Aroor, the 1st defendant Church, is a constituent Parish Church of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church in Kandanadu Diocese. The Church is included in the schedule of 1064 Churches in O.S. No. 4 of 1979, which culminated in the decision in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 286. The plaintiffs are the Parishioners of the 1st defendant Church; the 2nd defendant is the Trustee, the 3rd defendant is the Assistant Trustee and the 4th defendant is the Vicar of the Church. The administration and management of the Church has to be carried out as per the 1934 Constitution. Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasious is the Metropolitan of Kandanadu Diocese. The Vicar of the Church, including the 4th defendant, is appointed by Dr.Thomas Mar Athanasious in accordance with Section 40 of the 1934 Constitution. The Patriarch faction filed execution petition to execute the judgment of the Apex Court in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan, in the year 1999, which was transferred to the High Court by the order in S.L.P. No. 7593 of 2001. The Patriarch faction filed execution petition to execute the judgment of the Apex Court in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan, in the year 1999, which was transferred to the High Court by the order in S.L.P. No. 7593 of 2001. The Apex Court directed the Catholicos to take necessary steps, in order to conduct election to the Managing Committee. Mr. Justice Malimath was appointed as the Observer to the election scheduled on 20.03.2002 at Parumala. The election was conducted in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court and the same was confirmed by the Apex Court. Thereafter, Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasious and Mathews Mar Severious were appointed as the Diocesan Metropolitan of the Kandanadu Diocese. The Kandanadu Diocese was divided into two for proper administration, as East and West. Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasious is the Metropolitan of the Kandanadu Diocesan East. The 4th defendant was originally appointed as the Vicar as per Kalpana No. 61/98. Thereafter, Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasious was again appointed as the Metropolitan of Kandanadu Diocese and Kalpana was issued on 17.08.2002 conforming the appointment of the 4th defendant as the Vicar of the Church. As per Section 12 of the Constitution, the Vicar has to call pothuyogam. An agenda has to be prepared and the meeting of pothuyogam shall be declared at the time of Holly Mass, at least two Sundays before pothuyogam, by the Vicar. Before that, the voters list has to be prepared, which has to be published in the notice board, regarding the eligibility of the members to attend pothuyogam. Without following the procedure, the Vicar is intending to call a pothuyogam, on the basis of the request made by the 2nd defendant and 8 others. The Church is having more than 300 male members. Pothuyogam can be called either at the request of the Managing Committee or at the request of 25% members of Parish Assembly. But, only 10 members including women submitted the request to call pothuyogam. Therefore, the Vicar has no authority to call pothuyogam. Hence, the 4th defendant is acting against the norms and conditions of the Constitution. The 4th defendant has declared that the 1934 Constitution is not binding on him and he will convene pothuyogam. But, only 10 members including women submitted the request to call pothuyogam. Therefore, the Vicar has no authority to call pothuyogam. Hence, the 4th defendant is acting against the norms and conditions of the Constitution. The 4th defendant has declared that the 1934 Constitution is not binding on him and he will convene pothuyogam. In the plaint, the plaintiffs sought for a decree declaring that the 1st defendant Church is to be administered in accordance with the provisions of the 1934 Constitution; a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 4th defendant or his nominee from conducting pothuyogam of the 1st defendant Church on 10.11.2002 or any other dates, in violation of the provisions of the 1934 Constitution. 3.1. Defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement contending that the name of the 1st defendant church is St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Church, Marygiri, Aroor, which is wrongly shown as St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church in the cause title. The 1st defendant Church has been constituted as per Udambady dated 05.03.1955, a registered document bearing No. 649/55 of the Sub Registrar Office, Koothattukulam. The intention, aims and objects of creation of the Church is discernible from the said Udambady and it is on the basis of the said Udambady, the affairs of the 1st defendant Church is being managed. As per the said Udambady, only those who declares their allegiance to the Patriarch of Antioch in toto, alone are entitled to continue as members of the 1st defendant Church. The general assembly of the Parishioners is vested with all powers in respect of temporal affairs of the Church. Majority of the Parishioners have, at all point of time, sworn allegiance to the Patriarch of Antioch and wish to follow the Kalpanas and dictates of the Patriarch of Antioch to the exclusion of the minority, some among whom are plaintiffs. The 1st defendant Church in its correct name, as mentioned earlier, has never been governed or managed as per the provisions of the 1934 Constitution. At all times, womenfolk of the parish were playing a major role in the general assembly of the Church and they were having even voting rights. They are also elected to the Managing Committee, which is managing temporal affairs of the Church. Such a right bestowed on womenfolk is alien to the 1934 Constitution. At all times, womenfolk of the parish were playing a major role in the general assembly of the Church and they were having even voting rights. They are also elected to the Managing Committee, which is managing temporal affairs of the Church. Such a right bestowed on womenfolk is alien to the 1934 Constitution. On 20.03.2002, the elected representatives of the 1st defendant Church participated in the Jacobaya Suriyani Christiani Association and declared their allegiance to the Jacobaya Suriyani Christiani Sabha and its constituents. The Constitution of the Jacobaya Suriyani Christiani Sabha was placed before the general assembly of Church for its approval. The general assembly convened on 10.11.2002 approved and accepted the 2002 Constitution. In the general assembly, 178 out of 220 members of the 1st defendant Church participated and all voted and signed for the approval and acceptance of the 2002 Constitution. The defendants contended that ever since 10.11.2002, the 1st defendant Church is governed, guided and managed by the 2002 Constitution and the ecclesiastical functions of the 1st defendant Church are carried out as per the provisions of the 2002 Constitution, as per which the Patriarch of Antioch is the supreme authority. The 4th defendant was a priest of the 1st defendant Church, who declined to swear his allegiance to the 2002 Constitution. Against the 4th defendant a complaint was submitted before the Metropolitan, who as per Kalpana dated 11.10.2002 appointed Rev.Fr.Zacharia Varghese as the Vicar of the Church. When the new Vicar has taken charge, the present suit has been filed, at the instance of the 4th defendant, in collusion with the plaintiffs, who are aided and supported by Dr. Thomas Mar Althanasious, who has been excommunicated by the Patriarch of Antioch as early as on 25.11.2000. Regarding the averments in the plaint that the name of the 1st defendant Church is included in the schedule of 1064 Churches before the Apex Court, defendants 1 to 3 would contend that the 1st defendant Church in its correct name or its Managing Committee or the Trustee has never been made party to any of the litigations either before the District Court, High Court or the Apex Court. Therefore, the decisions in those litigations are not binding on defendants 1 to 3. 3.2. Therefore, the decisions in those litigations are not binding on defendants 1 to 3. 3.2. The 4th defendant filed written statement contending that the 1st defendant Church is one administered under the 1934 Constitution with the 4th defendant as the Vicar appointed by the Diocesan Metropolitan. 3.3. Defendants 1 to 3 filed I.A. No. 652 of 2010, seeking an order to hear the question of maintainability of the suit, in view of the provisions under Section 92 of the Code, as a preliminary issue. The plaintiffs or the 4th defendant did not file any counter affidavit in that interlocutory application. The trial court after considering the rival contentions found that the suit is one which squarely falls under sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Code. Since no leave was obtained prior to the institution of the suit, it is bad for want of leave under Section 92. Therefore, the trial court dismissed the suit as not maintainable by the judgment dated 05.03.2010 and made it clear that the findings of the court in the order dated 05.03.2010 in I.A. No. 652 of 2010 shall form part of that judgment. 3.4. On 12.03.2010, when this appeal came up for admission, this Court issued notice to the respondents and ordered that status quo order in force during the pendency of the suit shall continue, until further orders. By the order dated 17.08.2010 in I.A. No. 1231 of 2010, after taking note of the interim order of status quo dated 12.03.2010, this Court ordered that the arrangement made in Annexure-7 minutes for the period 2008-2009 shall continue until further orders. If any of the factions is of the opinion that some modifications are required in relation to Annexure-7 decision, the parties are at liberty to move the Sub Divisional Magistrate for appropriate orders, in that event the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall convene a meeting of representatives of both factions and take a decision. The Trustees were directed to handover keys to the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall continue to supervise and control the affairs of the Church, as was done from 2004 onwards. 4. R.F.A. No. 310 of 2010 - The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 38 of 1999 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam. 4. R.F.A. No. 310 of 2010 - The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 38 of 1999 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam. Going by the averments in the plaint, plaintiffs 1 to 3 are Parishioners and members of puthuyogam of Sehiyon Church, Onakkoor, the 1st defendant Church, and the 4th plaintiff is the Vicar of that Church. The 2nd defendant was the Vicar of the Church. The 3rd defendant is the Assistant Vicar; the 4th and 5th defendants are Kaikarans; and the 6th defendant is the Secretary of the Church, which is one of the Parish Churches under Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. The Church is to be administered as per the 1934 Constitution. The Church is a constituent Parish Church of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church in Kandanadu Diocese. Dr.Thomas Mar Athanasius is the Diocesan Metropolitan of Kandanadu Diocese. The right to appoint, transfer, remove Vicar and to conduct religious worship in Parish Churches and to control and supervise the administration of temporalities thereof, are vested in the Episcopal Authority being the Diocesan Metropolitan and Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasius appointed the 2nd and 3rd defendants as the Vicar and Assistant Vicar of Sehiyon Church, Onakkoor with effect from 06.09.1998 as per Kalpana No. 68/98. At that time Rev. Fr. John Manathikulathil was the Vicar of the Church. He was transferred and the 2nd defendant was appointed as the Vicar. On 17.08.2002, by Kalpana No. 41/02, the 2nd defendant was transferred from Onakkoor Church and he was appointed as Assistant Priest at St. Mary's Chapal, Pampakada. In his place, the 3rd defendant was appointed as the Vicar of Onakkoor Church. Later, as per Kalpana No 5A/2003 dated 14.03.2003, the 4th plaintiff was appointed as the Vicar of the Church and the 3rd defendant as Assistant Priest. According to the plaintiffs, the 2nd defendant disobeyed the transfer order of the Metropolitan and he is continuing in Onakkoor Church in total violation of the Kalpana issued by the Metropolitan appointing the 4th plaintiff as the Vicar. He is opposing the legal activities of the Church. The pothuyogam conducted on 15.08.1999 was presided by the 2nd defendant, in which only 30 members participated. The 2nd defendant, without previous notice, allowed certain resolutions making fundamental changes in the administration of the Church, which are against the 1934 Constitution. The 1st plaintiff and some others protested. He is opposing the legal activities of the Church. The pothuyogam conducted on 15.08.1999 was presided by the 2nd defendant, in which only 30 members participated. The 2nd defendant, without previous notice, allowed certain resolutions making fundamental changes in the administration of the Church, which are against the 1934 Constitution. The 1st plaintiff and some others protested. In the pothuyogam, it was decided to remove the name of the Diocesan Metropolitan Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasius from Thubuden and to include, in future, the Metropolitan appointed by the Patriarch. It was decided, among other things, to prevent Diocesan Metropolitan Dr.Thomas Mar Athanasius from entering into Onakkoor Church. The plaintiffs contended that the decisions taken in the pothuyogam are against the 1934 Constitution. The pothuyogam has no power to take such decisions. In the petition filed by some Parishioners including the plaintiffs, under Section 19 of the Constitution, the Metropolitan prohibited the implementation of the decisions in the pothuyogam dated 15.08.1999, on 18.08.1999. Even then, the said Kalpana was not implemented. The pothuyogam has no power to take such decisions. In the petition filed by some Parishioners including the plaintiffs, under Section 19 of the Constitution, the Metropolitan prohibited the implementation of the decisions in the pothuyogam dated 15.08.1999, on 18.08.1999. Even then, the said Kalpana was not implemented. In the suit, the plaintiffs sought for a decree declaring that the 1st defendant Church is to be administered under the Episcopal Authority of the Catholicos Malankara Metropolitan and the Kandanadu Diocese Metropolitan Dr.Thomas Mar Athanasious or whoever may succeed them in office in the Malankara Church and under the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church and that, all the resolutions and decisions of the pothuyogam passed on 15.08.1999 are null and void and not binding on the 1st defendant Church, since those decisions are against the Episcopal Authority and the 1934 Constitution and against Canon Rules; a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 2, 4 and 6 and their supporters from obstructing the 4th plaintiff from functioning and officiating as Vicar of the Church under the provisions of the 1934 Constitution; declare that the 4th plaintiff is entitled for remuneration from the Church Fund from the date of his appointment till he is transferred from the post of Vicar; to restrain defendants 2 to 6 and others supporting them by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from inducting in the 1st defendant Church any Priest or other religious dignitaries not appointed by the Kandanadu Diocese Metropolitan Dr.Thomas Mar Athanasius or the Catholicos Malankara Metropolitan or whoever may succeed them in office in the Malankara Church or from obstructing any Vicar or Priest appointed by the abovesaid Kandanadu Diocese Metropolitan or Catholicos Malankara Metropolitan to the 1st defendant Church, in their conduct of religious worships in that Church. 4.1. Defendants 1, 2, 4 to 6 filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. They contended that the suit has become infructuous since the decisions taken by the pothuyogam are implemented from that date onwards. After the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20.06.1995, 25.03.1996, 05.02.1997, the 1934 Constitution was amended and modified and the same is made applicable to the administration of the 1st defendant Church. Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasius is not the lawful Metropolitan and he is not entitled to the status quo, as envisaged in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan. After the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20.06.1995, 25.03.1996, 05.02.1997, the 1934 Constitution was amended and modified and the same is made applicable to the administration of the 1st defendant Church. Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasius is not the lawful Metropolitan and he is not entitled to the status quo, as envisaged in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan. Malankara Church is not a fully Episcopal Church. As envisaged in the 1934 Constitution the right to appoint transfer, remove Vicars and conduct of religious worship are vested in a lawful Diocesan Metropolitan. The power to control and supervise the administration of the temporalities are vested in the pothuyogam of the Church. The conferment of powers regarding the Kandanad Diocese to Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasius is illegal and void. The properties of the Church do not vest in the Catholicos or the Metropolitan of the concerned Diocese. The Patriarch of Antioch has restrained Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasius from functioning as the Metropolitan of Kandanad Diocese by Kalpana dated 12.04.1999. The Church is formed by the forefathers of the present Parishioners with the object of conducting religious services by dignitaries who possess the spiritual grace from the throne of St. Peter, transmitted by the Patriarch of Antioch of the East, for the benefit of Parishioners. The Church and the properties appertaining thereto are held subject to the trust and the same shall all times be used for the above purpose without deviation. All matters are carried on in accordance with the 1934 Constitution amended by the Apex Court, as found in Para.141 of the authoritative pronouncement. The pothuyogam was properly announced, which was attended by 40 members. The passing of resolution will not make any fundamental change in the administration. The meeting was properly held on 15.08.1999. The decisions are not against the 1934 Constitution, as alleged in the plaint. The pothuyogam has the right to take decisions in all matters. The minutes were prepared during the transaction of the meeting. Since Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasius is not the lawful Metropolitan, no petition can be filed before him. Therefore, the decision dated 18.08.1999 has no validity. After amendment of the plaint, defendants 1, 2, 4 to 6 filed additional written statement, contending that Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasius has no authority or right to remove or transfer the 2nd defendant from the post of Vicar of the 1st defendant Church. 4.2. Therefore, the decision dated 18.08.1999 has no validity. After amendment of the plaint, defendants 1, 2, 4 to 6 filed additional written statement, contending that Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasius has no authority or right to remove or transfer the 2nd defendant from the post of Vicar of the 1st defendant Church. 4.2. Defendants 7 to 9 filed written statement contending that the 1st defendant Church is a public religious and charitable Church and the relief sought for in the plaint will come within the ambit of Section 92 of the Code. The plaintiffs have not complied with the procedure prescribed under Section 92 of the Code. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The relief sought for are touching the administration of the 1st defendant Church. But, the Church and its properties are not scheduled. The plaintiff has not valued the suit properly even though reliefs A and C are capable of valuation. The original of the 1934 Constitution has not been produced. The plaintiffs are not Parishioners of the Church. The decisions in the pothuyogam dated 15.08.1999 has already been implemented. The present trustees were elected in March 2006 and they are defendants 10 and 11. The Church was established 19 years ago in the name of Patriarch of Antioch for the religious needs of the Parishioners accepting his spiritual supremacy. The Diocesan Metropolitan accepted by the Church and its Parishioners is Mathew Mar Ivaneous. The Church never accepted the 1934 Constitution. It adopted the 2002 Constitution, which is in conformity to the faith for which the Church is established. The 2nd defendant is the Vicar of the Church. The 4th plaintiff is not competent to act as the Vicar. Additional defendants 10 and 12 are the Trustees. The name of Mathews Mar Ivaneous was read and observed in the Thumben. The salary of the Priest and 3rd and 4th defendants, the Vicar and the Assistant Vicar, are directly paid by the Church. The 1st defendant is not bound to remit any amount to Diocesan Office, Muvattupuzha. The meeting convened on 15.08.1999 is legal and valid and the decisions have already been implemented. 4.3. Defendants 10 to 13 filed written statement raising a similar contention as to maintainability of the suit, on the ground that the relief sought for in the plaint will come within the purview of Section 92 of the Code. The meeting convened on 15.08.1999 is legal and valid and the decisions have already been implemented. 4.3. Defendants 10 to 13 filed written statement raising a similar contention as to maintainability of the suit, on the ground that the relief sought for in the plaint will come within the purview of Section 92 of the Code. They contended that plaintiffs 1 to 3 are not Parishioners of the Church and the 4th plaintiff never officiated in the Church. The 2nd defendant is the Vicar and the 3rd defendant is the Assistant Vicar from 06.08.1998. The decisions of the pothuyogam were implemented and the present trustees were elected in the month of March, 2006. The Church is established 90 years ago for the conduct of religious services in accordance with the basic faith, custom, tradition and Canon of Jacobite Syrian Christian faith. Spiritual supremacy of Patriarch of Antioch is approved by the Parishioners and the Diocesan Metropolitan is Mathews Mar Ivaneous. The Church is not administrated by the 1934 Constitution but it accepted and adopted the 2002 Constitution which is in conformity to the faith for which the Church is established. The meeting convened on 15.08.1999 is perfectly legal and valid. The Constitution adopted by the Parish assembly on 12.03.2006 is in conformity with the objective for which the Church is established. The administration of the Church is being carried on, on the basis of 2002 Constitution. 4.4. Defendants 10 to 13 filed I.A. No. 128 of 2010 raising the additional issue of maintainability of the suit, in view of the provisions under Section 92 of the Code. The said interlocutory application was allowed and the additional issue was permitted to be raised and the matter was heard. Defendants 10 to 13 contended that, as the 1st defendant Church is a public religious and charitable trust, the reliefs sought for in the plaint will come within the ambit of Section 92 of the Code. Since no leave under sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Code was obtained, the suit is not maintainable. After considering the rival contentions, the trial court arrived at a conclusion that the suit falls within the scope of Section 92 of the Code and in the absence of an application for leave, it cannot be considered as a validly instituted suit. After considering the rival contentions, the trial court arrived at a conclusion that the suit falls within the scope of Section 92 of the Code and in the absence of an application for leave, it cannot be considered as a validly instituted suit. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any reliefs, as sought for in the plaint. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the suit as not maintainable, for want of leave under Section 92 of the Code. 4.5. On 03.06.2010, when this appeal came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to respondents 1 to 9 by special messenger. Respondents 10 to 13 entered appearance through counsel. In I.A. No. 1779 of 2010 this Court ordered that the parties will abide by the directions in terms of Ext.A2 judgment in F.A.O. No. 7 of 2010 and the Police shall maintain the directions issued therein. 5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel/the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned Senior Counsel/the learned counsel for the respondents in the respective appeals. 6. The learned Senior Counsel/the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the respective suits are instituted for enforcing the personal rights of the Vicar/Priest of the respective Churches. Moreover, considering the nature of reliefs sought for, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Code have no application in the respective suits. The entire issues relating to control of spiritual and temporal management of affairs of the Parish Churches of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church are concluded in the decision of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese by holding that the 1934 Constitution is appropriate and adequate for the management of the Parish Churches. As such, there is no necessity for a leave under Section 92 of the Code. 7. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel/learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the averments in the plaint and the nature of reliefs sought for, squarely falls within the purview of sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Code and as such, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court/trial court dismissing the respective suits for want of leave under Section 92 of the Code is perfectly legal, which requires no interference in these appeals. The learned counsel for the respondents in R.F.A. No. 174 of 2010 would contend that St. The learned counsel for the respondents in R.F.A. No. 174 of 2010 would contend that St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Church, Marygiri, which is wrongly shown as St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church in the cause title of O.S. No. 31 of 2002, is not a constituent Parish Church of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Marygiri Church has been constituted as per Udambady dated 05.03.1955. The said Church, in its correct name, has never been governed or managed as per the provisions of the 1934 Constitution. 8. The perpetual fight between the Patriarch faction and the Catholicos faction for managing the affairs of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and for control of spiritual and temporal management of affairs of the Parish Churches culminated in the judgment of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese. The said decision arises out of three original suits filed under Order I, Rule 8 and Sections 26 and 92 of the Code, for control of spiritual and temporal management of the affairs of three Parish Churches, namely, Kolenchery Church, Varikoli Church and Mannathur Church. 8.1. The appeals relating to Kolencherry Church arose out of a suit filed by the Patriarch faction to declare that Kolencherry Church (1st defendant Church) its assets, including the educational institutions are liable to be administered only in accordance with Udampady executed on 30.12.2013; to settle a scheme for administration of the Church and its assets; to appoint a Receiver, conduct elections after preparing proper voters list irrespective of their factional affiliations and to entrust management to them; and for a permanent injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from receiving the key of the Church. 8.2. The appeals relating to Varikoli Church arose out of a suit filed by the Catholicos faction to declare that Varikoli Church (1st defendant church) is governed by the 1934 Constitution as upheld by the Apex Court and defendants 2 and 3 have no right to claim the status of trustees of the Church; permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain defendants 2 and 3 from functioning as trustees of the Church; mandatory injunction directing the 4th defendant to call for immediate pothuyogam of the 1st defendant Church and to hold election of new Managing Committee including trustees and Secretary in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. In the said suit, defendants 13 to 15 raised a counter claim to cause a referendum to ascertain the allegiance of the Parishioners of the 1st defendant church; to declare that the Church and its assets are to be governed in accordance with the faith and will professed by majority of the Parishioners of the Church; to pass a final decree declaring that the Church and its assets be administered in accordance with the decision of majority of the Parishioners; and permanent injunction against the 3rd defendant, his agents and religious dignitaries and those who are not accepting spiritual supremacy of Patriarch of Antioch and All the East. 8.3. The appeals relating to Mannathur Church arose out of a suit filed by the Catholicos faction to declare that Mannathur Church (1st defendant Church) is administered by the 1934 Constitution; to declare that defendants 3 to 5 have no right or authority to act as its trustees; permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants 3 to 5 from functioning as its trustees; to direct the 2nd defendant to call general body for holding elections; and injunction against changing the name of the 1st defendant Church. 8.4. In K.S. Varghese the Apex Court noticed perpetual fight between the Patriarch faction and the Catholicos faction for managing the affairs of Malankara Church and for control of spiritual and temporal management of affairs of the Parish Churches. Before the Apex Court it was contended that the judgment in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan vs. Moran Mar Marthoma, (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 286 has no binding effect. It would be having only the evidentiary value under Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Repelling the said contention, the Apex Court held that, the finding in the 1995 judgment, which operates as res-judicata is about the binding nature of the 1934 Constitution on the Parishioners and Parish Churches. The Court has made an exception under the aforesaid judgment with respect to Knanaya Church. It is not open to the Parishioners to contend that they can have their independent Constitution and not bound by the 1934 Constitution. The 1995 judgment cannot be misconstrued so as to confer the aforesaid right upon the Parishioners. The 1995 judgment is clear, unequivocal and unambiguous with respect to binding nature of the 1934 Constitution. 8.5. It is not open to the Parishioners to contend that they can have their independent Constitution and not bound by the 1934 Constitution. The 1995 judgment cannot be misconstrued so as to confer the aforesaid right upon the Parishioners. The 1995 judgment is clear, unequivocal and unambiguous with respect to binding nature of the 1934 Constitution. 8.5. In K.S. Varghese it was contended that the Parish Churches, even after the 1934 Constitution, can decide to make their own Constitution in the exercise of their fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, so as to follow the faith of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch. Repelling the said contention, the Apex Court opined that, it would not be open to any faction or group to adopt any particular system of management of Churches and to have a parallel system of managing authorities under the guise of spiritual supremacy. The mismanagement of Church and chaos cannot be permitted to be created for temporal gains or otherwise. There is a system of management, and the spiritual aspect which has been claimed under the guise of spiritual supremacy, is an effort to illegally take over the management of the Churches by rival factions in derogation of delegation of powers. The power with respect to Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is the Primate, i.e. Catholicos. Though the Primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church is the Patriarch of Antioch, certain spiritual powers have also been vested in Malankara Metropolitan, as per Section 94 of the 1934 Constitution. The prime jurisdiction regarding the temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administration of the Malankara Church is vested with the Malankara Metropolitan subject to provisions of the Constitution and under the guise of spiritual supremacy an effort is being made to obtain the appointments of Vicars and Priests as parallel authorities so as to manage the churches and to render religious services under the guise of Patriarch. On the other hand, there are already Vicars and other authorities appointed as per the 1934 Constitution. Thus, under the garb of spiritual supremacy which had reached a vanishing point due to the establishment of Catholicos and Kalpana, and the 1934 Constitution which has been accepted and is binding, a parallel system of governance of churches would not be in the interest of the church and would destroy it. 8.6. Thus, under the garb of spiritual supremacy which had reached a vanishing point due to the establishment of Catholicos and Kalpana, and the 1934 Constitution which has been accepted and is binding, a parallel system of governance of churches would not be in the interest of the church and would destroy it. 8.6. In K.S. Varghese it was contended that, in the 1995 judgment, the ex-communication of the Catholicos was held to be invalid since there was no permissible or relevant ground for the same. Thus, the supremacy of Patriarch cannot be denied by Catholicos group. Such a denial would alter the fundamental faith of the Patriarch followers who have been forced to form their own association for safeguarding their spiritual and religious interests. The Apex Court noticed that the discussion which has been made in the 1995 judgment is too elaborate and is based primarily on various historical facts and background which clearly indicate that the Patriarch at no point of time had exercised temporal control and it was considered necessary to establish the office of the Catholicos so as to manage the Malankara Church, which is a division of the Orthodox Syrian Church. The Malankara Church was founded by St. Thomas the Apostle and is included in the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East and the Primate of the Church is the Catholicos. It is apparent from Kalpana's, establishment of the office of Catholicos and other historical facts discussed in the judgments referred to in the 1995 judgment that once having created the office, it is not the plea of waiver or abandonment but the Kalpana issued by the Patriarch is binding upon him also. Thus it is a positive act and once having done so, the Patriarch is bound by it and cannot wriggle out of it and make the entire Parish Church system topsy-turvy. Thus the Three-Judge Bench decision (the 1995 judgment) cannot be said to be contrary to the Four-Judge Bench decision in Sha Mulchand and Co. Ltd. vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 98 but on a closer scrutiny, Sha Mulchand does not buttress the plea of the appellants but negotiate against it. Thus the Three-Judge Bench decision (the 1995 judgment) cannot be said to be contrary to the Four-Judge Bench decision in Sha Mulchand and Co. Ltd. vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 98 but on a closer scrutiny, Sha Mulchand does not buttress the plea of the appellants but negotiate against it. Too much cannot be made out of the observations made by the Court that the Patriarch cannot be said to have lost his spiritual supremacy over the Malankara Church but the fact that remains is that it has reached a vanishing point and the Church has to be managed as per the historical background, in accordance with the 1934 Constitution which has also the force behind it of the Patriarch himself, in the form of Kalpana. 8.7. In K.S. Varghese the Apex Court found that the Parishioners can have faith in the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch but not in all the matters. They have to give equal importance in the matter of management of the 1934 Constitution and cannot be permitted to commit regular breach and devise ways to circumvent the judgment of the Court by one way or the other and under the garb of spiritual fight wrest the temporal control of the Churches. That the spiritual power of the Patriarch has reached to a vanishing point, has to be given the full meaning and it cannot mean that the powers can be exercised under the umbrella of spirituality to interfere in the administration of the Church and creating a parallel system of appointing Vicars and Priests, etc., which will paralyse the functioning of the Churches for which they have been formed and it would be against the very spirit of creation of trust from time immemorial which inheres the concept that once a Trust always a Trust. No person under the guise of spiritual faith can be permitted to destroy a system which is prevailing for the management of such Churches and go on forming Constitution as per his will time and again. There is no need in case of any such Constitution as is framed in the year 2002. Once any Parishioner wants to change the 1934 Constitution, it is open to them to amend it as per the procedure. There is no need in case of any such Constitution as is framed in the year 2002. Once any Parishioner wants to change the 1934 Constitution, it is open to them to amend it as per the procedure. It is right that the 1934 Constitution therefore is not a Bible or Holy book of Quran or other Holy books which cannot be amended. The 1934 Constitution has been amended in the form of bye-laws or regulations applicable for governance of Parish Churches a number of times, and it can still be amended to take care of the legitimate grievances, if any, but there appears to be none for which the fight has been going on unabated in the instant cases. 8.8. In K.S. Varghese, it was contended that, Parishioners have a right to follow their own faith under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and that the Preamble to the Constitution guarantees the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship. Those who believe in apostolic succession through St. Peter forms one denomination (viz. Patriarch group) and those who believe in apostolic succession through St. Thomas forms another denomination (viz. Catholicos group) within the same religion (viz. Christianity). The Patriarch group forming a religious denomination has a fundamental right to decide what rites should be performed in their Parish Churches, who would perform them and how they should be performed in accordance with their faith. The Vicar holds a very important position in the Church; he conducts the Holy Mass, the Confession, Anointing of the Holy Mooron and other sacraments and ceremonies. He also collects the donations made to a particular Church. When the majority of the Parishioners who contribute to such donations belong to the Patriarch group, the use of such contribution to further the cause of Catholicos by the trustee would result in a breach of trust of the donors and beneficiaries. A Vicar of a Catholicos group could not be thrust on a worshipper of Patriarch faith against his will. The freedom guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India will prevail over anything contained to the contrary in the 1934 Constitution. 8.9. In K.S. Varghese, repelling the aforesaid contentions, the Apex Court held that the appointment of Vicar is not a spiritual matter but is a secular matter. The freedom guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India will prevail over anything contained to the contrary in the 1934 Constitution. 8.9. In K.S. Varghese, repelling the aforesaid contentions, the Apex Court held that the appointment of Vicar is not a spiritual matter but is a secular matter. From the discussion made in the 1995 judgment and the various documents referred to therein, it is apparent that the Patriarch of Antioch has not exercised the power earlier with respect to the appointment of Priests, etc. He has re-established the Throne of Catholicos in 1912 under a Kalpana in which he has dedicated the power to the 1934 Constitution which has been accepted by the issuance of Kalpana and by establishing Catholicos-III in 1964 by consecrating Malankara Metropolitan. The 1934 Constitution has to hold the field and it is not the spiritual right within the spiritual domain even if the Patriarch of Antioch is supreme to appoint Vicars/Priests. It is apparent from Section 40 that the Diocesan Metropolitan has the authority to appoint, remove or transfer the Vicar and other priests. The Diocesan Metropolitan has to control the Vicar as per the scheme of the Constitution. The Diocesan Metropolitan has been given the authority to appoint a Vicar for a wholesome purpose in the 1934 Constitution as the Patriarch of Antioch abroad cannot and is not supposed to exercise the deep and pervasive control over the management of Churches such as the appointment of Vicar, which is a secular matter and not a spiritual one. 8.10. In K.S. Varghese the Apex Court noticed that the prime jurisdiction with respect to the temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administration of the Malankara Church is vested in the Malankara Metropolitan and other authorities. It is intended for proper administration of the Church and does not run against the concept of the spiritual authority of the Patriarch of Antioch but at the same time, Malankara Metropolitan enjoys all the temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administration powers. Thus the power of the Patriarch of Antioch has reached a vanishing point and he cannot exercise those powers which are lying with various authorities under the Constitution as per the historical background noted in the 1995 judgment since time immemorial. It passes comprehension how the Patriarch of Antioch can manage the day to day affairs in India sitting abroad. Thus the power of the Patriarch of Antioch has reached a vanishing point and he cannot exercise those powers which are lying with various authorities under the Constitution as per the historical background noted in the 1995 judgment since time immemorial. It passes comprehension how the Patriarch of Antioch can manage the day to day affairs in India sitting abroad. It is not contemplated nor he is supposed to do so in view of his Kalpana's and historical facts also indicate otherwise that he had not been managing the churches and it is better that the Churches are left for the purpose of day to day administration. The powers of appointment of Vicar and Priests, etc. to the local Malankara Church, have rightly been given to the concerned authorities in the 1934 Constitution on the basis of prevalent practices. 8.11. In K.S. Varghese, dealing with the contention as to the violation of faith and violation of a right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court observed that, there is no doubt that a religious denomination or organisation enjoys a complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to rites and ceremonies essential according to their tenets of religion they hold and no outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with their decisions in such matters. At the same time, secular matters can be controlled by the secular authorities in accordance with the law laid down by the competent legislature as laid down in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282 . Spiritual power is also with various authorities like Catholicos, Malankara Metropolitan, etc. Thus it is too far fetched an argument that the Patriarch of Antioch or his delegate should appoint a Vicar or Priest. There is no violation of any right of Article 25 or Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Neither any of the provisions relating to appointment of the Vicar can be said to be in violation of any of the rights under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution of India. The 1934 Constitution cannot be said to be in violation of Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution of India. 8.12. Neither any of the provisions relating to appointment of the Vicar can be said to be in violation of any of the rights under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution of India. The 1934 Constitution cannot be said to be in violation of Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution of India. 8.12. In K.S. Varghese, before the Apex Court, it was suggested that, the faith involved in Malankara Church case refers to apostolic succession from Jesus Christ, viz., the blessings and grace of Christ descends through an apostle, i.e. St. Peter or St. Thomas, as the case may be, and from the said apostle to the Pope/Patriarch who appoints a Vicar. The Apex Court held that, the said argument ignores and overlooks other offices that are in-between like Catholicos, Malankara Metropolitan, and Diocesan Metropolitan, etc. It is not necessary for the Pope and the Patriarch to appoint Vicar because management of a Church is not a religious ritual. The spiritual powers vest in other functionaries also and obviously spiritual power cannot be the monopoly of any particular individual howsoever high he may be. Others are in hierarchy, viz., Diocesan Metropolitan has power to appoint Vicar, Priests, etc., as per Section 40. In the matter of ordination of Deacons and Priests by Diocesan Metropolitan or Malankara Matropolitan, a candidate for ordination should have a degree qualification. Power to appoint high Priests (Prelates) is by Catholicos in co-operation with Synod. Bishop and Metropolitan can be consecrated by the Catholicos in conjunction with Synod, Bishop or Metropolitan has to be elected by the Association after approval by Synod to be consecrated by Catholicos. Person for ordination has to study theology, and on being found fit can be ordained. It is not that only blessing of a spiritual person makes him qualified to perform duties of such posts. Appointment of Vicar and Priests is a secular matter and there can be legislation also in this regard by sovereigns and can be dealt with by secular authorities also. There is no question of blessings of Jesus Christ not flowing to a person who confesses before a Vicar not appointed by the Patriarch. The spiritual competence of Vicar depends on his own attainments. The dispute appears to be for fulfillment of desire to manage Church for the reasons which are not related to spiritualism. There is no question of blessings of Jesus Christ not flowing to a person who confesses before a Vicar not appointed by the Patriarch. The spiritual competence of Vicar depends on his own attainments. The dispute appears to be for fulfillment of desire to manage Church for the reasons which are not related to spiritualism. Spiritual person is supposed to leave all such desires as laid down in Bhagavad Gita by Lord Krishna thus: “Chap. 4, Verse 39: xxx xxx xxx [venacular matter omitted] [The person, whose highest goal is spiritual wisdom, has abiding faith and controls the senses, attains wisdom quickly and experiences the Supreme Peace].” 8.13. In K.S. Varghese, before the Apex Court, it was contended that, granting the reliefs as sought for in the plaint would result in a situation favouring one party over another and bringing religious imbalance also. In this regard reliance was placed on the observations of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria [Application No. 39023 of 1997, decided on 16.12.2004], wherein ECtHR while considering a claim by one of two rival groups claiming leadership of Muslim community in Bulgaria held that there had been violation as the state actions had the effect of compelling the divided community to have a single leadership against the will of one of the two factions. It stated that the role of the authorities in a situation of conflict between or within religious group was not to remove the cause of tension by elimination of pluralism, but to ensure that the competing groups tolerated each other. State measures favouring a particular leader of a divided religious community would constitute infringement of freedom of religion. While dealing with the aforesaid contention, the Apex Court observed that the question is whether on the division of community, there is division of control and management and property of Church. Supremacy issue of Patriarch or Catholicos has been raised unnecessarily. It is a Diocesan Metropolitan as per Section 40 of the Constitution who has the power to appoint Vicar, Priests, etc. and there is other hierarchy provided. Even Catholicos, Malankara Metropolitan has the spiritual powers. It is not that they have temporal powers only. They have spiritual status too that has to be respected equally. It is a Diocesan Metropolitan as per Section 40 of the Constitution who has the power to appoint Vicar, Priests, etc. and there is other hierarchy provided. Even Catholicos, Malankara Metropolitan has the spiritual powers. It is not that they have temporal powers only. They have spiritual status too that has to be respected equally. No office is either superior or inferior in the matter of relationship between the two heads, the Catholicos and the Patriarch. Both are independent spiritual authorities. However, the Patriarch occupies the higher post in the hierarchy, i.e. he has an honour or precedence if he is present, i.e. in a sense he is the first among equals–”primus inter parties.” The Church functioning is based on division of responsibilities at various levels. The division of power is for the purpose of management and does not militate against the basic character of the Church being Episcopal in character. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 14, Para-562, right of Parishioners has been described thus: “To enter the Church, remain there for purpose of participating in divine worship to have a seat and to obey the reasonable directions of the Church to ordain.” The highest authority of Malankara Church of the East is Catholicos being its primate as recognised in Section 2 of the 1934 Constitution. What is sought for and intended is wholly uncalled for, wholly unnecessary and unpalatable. Community may divide but Churches and places of worship cannot be divided. They have to be respected for the sake of religion and to exercise their coveted rights under Article 25 and Article 26 and for preservation of such rights. Still there may not be truce and peace in the Church, which cannot be helped. A person interested in spirituality may attain it by karma, dedication to deity, concentration and controlling senses as stated in Gita by Lord Krishna: “Chap. 7, Verse 4: xxx xxx xxx [venacular matter omitted] [Earth, water, fire, air, mind, intellect and the ego - these are the 8 divisions of My separated matter (Prakriti) that is Prakriti comprises not only the material world of matter of energy but also the inner world of thoughts, emotions and the ego.]” “Chap. 3, Verse 29: xxx xxx xxx [venacular matter omitted] [People who are influenced by the senses, remain attached to sense objects and the material aspects of the world. 3, Verse 29: xxx xxx xxx [venacular matter omitted] [People who are influenced by the senses, remain attached to sense objects and the material aspects of the world. The wise should not disturb these ignorant people, whose knowledge is incomplete.] For persons who are professing the religion for temporal gains, no one can show them spiritual way. They are free to have their pursuit and excel in that too but not at the cost of the very deity and Church or religious place itself. The Apex Court held that the 1934 Constitution cannot be said to be an instrument of injustice or vehicle of oppression. Thus the decision of American Express Bank Ltd. vs. Calcutta Steel Co. (1993) 2 SCC 199 is of no avail. 8.14. In K.S. Varghese, before the Apex Court, it was submitted that, the Parishioners own the property of the Parish Church and the Cemetery and they cannot be deprived of that right by reason of the office holders of the Parish Churches by not subscribing to the 1934 Constitution. The attempt by Catholicos is to take away ancient Churches and bar the Parishioners from entry to the Churches and Cemetery. Repelling the said submission, the Apex Court held that, the properties would always remain to be Malankara Church properties. Only officeholders have to subscribe to the 1934 Constitution as held by the Court. The Parishioners can take no Church property away, neither Catholicos faction by majority and the submission is based on the misconception as to the nature of rights in such property. It has to remain in Malankara Church. Neither the Church nor the Cemetery can be confiscated by anybody. It has to remain with Parishioners as per the customary rights and nobody can be deprived of right one enjoys being a Parishioner in the Church or to be buried honourably in the cemetery, in case he continues to have faith in Malankara Church. It passes comprehension as to how irreconcilable differences in faith have been sought to be created in flimsy manner to divide Church into the Patriarch and Catholicos factions whereas they are part of the Malankara Church, whereas the dominant faith is the common, Malankara Church is one, and Orthodox Syrian Church is the same. Only intention differs. It passes comprehension as to how irreconcilable differences in faith have been sought to be created in flimsy manner to divide Church into the Patriarch and Catholicos factions whereas they are part of the Malankara Church, whereas the dominant faith is the common, Malankara Church is one, and Orthodox Syrian Church is the same. Only intention differs. Hence, law and order situation has arisen which cannot be a scenario for spiritual attainments with embodiment of tolerance and equality of all human beings and living creatures. The depth in sight beyond the sensual eye sight is required for spiritual gains. The Apex Court observed that, for the reasons best known to the parties, fight is going on regarding the management which is wholly uncalled for. If church has to survive, obviously this must stop and let the blessings of the Christ fall upon the believers, actual followers of his teaching. This is the only way by which we can expect that peace will come to the Church. For the unrest and ugly situation no reason, good, bad or otherwise exist which can be legally recognised. 8.15. In K.S. Varghese, before the Apex Court, it was submitted that, if services and ceremonies are conducted by only those Vicars and priests who are appointed in accordance with the 1934 Constitution, it would be violative of the basic object of the Parish Church. The Apex Court found no force in the said submission. The Apex Court noticed that, Diocesan Metropolitan appoints Vicar under the 1934 Constitution. It does not impinge upon the object of the Parish Churches. The Catholicos or the Patriarch, as the case may be, are not supposed to deal with such matters which are reserved for Diocesan Metropolitan as apparent from various decisions and provisions in the 1934 Constitution. This is the position prevailing since long. Vicars or Priests can also be appointed by secular authorities of sovereign. The appointment made by Diocesan Metropolitan cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or affecting the spiritual rights of the Parishioners. Deacons and Priest for ordination are required to undergo successfully, theological studies and Principal has to certify as to their fitness. For ordination as Korooyo (Reader) successfully clearing of 3 years' study is required. The appointment made by Diocesan Metropolitan cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or affecting the spiritual rights of the Parishioners. Deacons and Priest for ordination are required to undergo successfully, theological studies and Principal has to certify as to their fitness. For ordination as Korooyo (Reader) successfully clearing of 3 years' study is required. How Patriarch from abroad can exercise such powers is beyond comprehension and that would amount to unnecessary interference which is not supported by any Kalpana or historical document. The 1934 Constitution provides appointment of Vicar by Diocese in the area of its operation. Other provisions with respect to appointment are detailed out in the 1934 Constitution. In the absence of anything having been provided in Udampady, the 1934 Constitution would hold the field. 8.16. In K.S. Varghese, the Apex Court noticed that, faith is tried to be unnecessarily divided vis-a-vis the office of Catholicos and the Patriarch. Faith of church is in the Jesus Christ. An effort is being made to take over the management and other powers by such an action just to gain control of temporal matters under the garb of spirituality. Even if Vicar performs the functions, which are religious, there would not be infringement of the rights under Article 25 and Article 26 of constitution of India in case the Diocesan Metropolitan appoints Vicar as provided in the Constitution and it is clear that the Patriarch of Antioch has not reserved this power to himself. As a matter of fact the 1995 judgment settled such disputes, between the parties, in which the Court tried its best to take care of the prevailing situation while passing the decree. It was observed in utter breach during its execution itself. The Diocesan Metropolitan as per the Constitution of 1934 appoints Vicar. The submission that Vicar of a Catholicos group cannot be thrust on a worshipper of Patriarch faith against his will, is totally unsound and is simply a ploy to take over the control of the management of the Church by putting faith in a Vicar who is running a parallel governance at the cost of Church by creating factionalism within the Churches. It is settled proposition of law that when a mode is prescribed for doing a thing, it can be done only in that manner and not otherwise. It is settled proposition of law that when a mode is prescribed for doing a thing, it can be done only in that manner and not otherwise. The Court in 1995 Judgment made it clear that the Patriarch has no such authority. He could not exercise any such spiritual power unilaterally, as done in 1972, which became the cause of unrest in Church. The appointment of Vicar, Priest by the Patriarch or through delegate unilaterally was held to be not permissible in the decision of 1995 even if he has such powers. It appears he has no such power to interfere in the management of the Church and now that question is agitated again and under the same guise of supremacy. Such an uncalled for attempt has to be thwarted and not to be countenanced for a moment. There is no violation of constitutional provisions or authority of Patriarch. Thus there is no question of violation of Parishioners' rights and applicability of decisions in Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 , Basheshar Nath vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1959 SC 149 and Nar Singh Paul vs. Union of India, (2000) 3 SCC 588 . 8.17. In K.S. Varghese, it was argued before the Apex Court even though the Patriarch power may have been reduced to vanishing point, the Patriarch may not be a mere glorified cipher. Section 101 of the 1934 Constitution, which provides that the Malankara Church shall recognize the Patriarch canonically consecrated with the co-operation of the Catholicos, cannot be interpreted to mean that Catholicos can dictate as to who can be appointed as Patriarch. In paragraph 155(3) of the 1995 judgment, it was laid down that the Patriarch could exercise its powers with consultation with Patriarch house. Consultation does not mean concurrence. Only intimation would be required in this case. There is nothing to prevent Patriarch from exercising the powers even if the Catholicos disagree, as the Patriarch of Antioch is spiritually superior. While repelling the aforesaid contentions, the Apex Court noticed that the principle enunciated by the Court in respect of Knanaya Church is not at all applicable with respect to Parish Churches where the finding of the Court is otherwise to the effect that they are bound by the 1934 Constitution. The spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch has not been put into question by the Catholicos faction. The spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch has not been put into question by the Catholicos faction. It was not pleaded that his appointment is not recognised by the Catholicos faction. The Universal Synod in accordance with the applicable Canon appoints the Patriarch. The Apex Court opined that in the absence of any dispute as to the identity who is the Patriarch, there is no question of not recognising Patriarch by the Malankara Church. Rightly it has not been pleaded, but that does not help the appellants with respect to appointment of Vicar and Priests, etc. However, what is the extent of authority of the Patriarch has to be seen and gazed in the light of historical background ‘Kalpanas’ and what has been held in various representative suits from time to time which are binding to the extent the issues decided. Once office of the Catholicos has been re-established, Patriarch could not exercise the powers which have been dealt with in the 1934 Constitution, and conferred on various authorities in hierarchy of Church, that too unilaterally to create another centre of power and thereby the Patriarch cannot be permitted to create parallel system of administration by appointing Vicars, Priests and Deacon or another authority of Church. He is bound to act within the four corners of the 1934 constitution for the sake of peace in the Church. In the temporal matters, Patriarch has no power and the spiritual power had also come to the vanishing point by his own acts as noticed by the Court in the 1995 and other judgments. Submission to the contrary on behalf of the appellants that he can exercise the powers after informing the Catholicos, cannot be accepted. The Malankara Metropolitan has to be of local area. Logically also for proper management of the affairs of Churches power cannot be exercised from abroad. Such a scenario is neither conceived nor feasible or permissible. The spiritual supremacy of one holy authority over the other, also cannot per se mean exclusion and subordination of the other religious authority. When there is delegation and delimitation of the territorial and other powers, concerned authorities however high they may be, spiritually or otherwise, have to follow the discipline and strictly act as per delimitation of zones and powers. It is absolutely necessary for survival of the Church and for proper administration. 8.18. When there is delegation and delimitation of the territorial and other powers, concerned authorities however high they may be, spiritually or otherwise, have to follow the discipline and strictly act as per delimitation of zones and powers. It is absolutely necessary for survival of the Church and for proper administration. 8.18. In K.S. Varghese, the Apex Court found that the source of the entire problem is that the Patriarchs faction is not ready to accept Vicar and Priests and the management which vests not only in Catholicos but also in Malankara Metropolitan, Diocesan Metropolitan. They want to have their own system of management by creating parallel managing groups as noted by the Court in the 1995 judgment also. In 1972, genesis of entire problem in the Churches was appointment of Vicar, etc. made unilaterally on behalf of the Patriarch. Thereafter, the Court had rendered the judgment and held that it was not open to the Patriarch to do it in the method and manner that it was done. Even assuming for a moment that Patriarch was having those powers, he could not exercise them unilaterally and the 1934 Constitution prevails in the Churches, is a clear finding of the Court. Thus the Patriarch has also acted against the 1934 Constitution as well as the Canon by which Catholicos have been re-established in 1912 and after delimitation of areas. The Patriarch faction for no good cause is ready to accept the ecclesiastical and spiritual powers of the Catholicos and others as provided in the Constitution and Kalpana's and as held by the Court in the previous judgments. It was held in 1905 in the Arthat Suit that the Churches and their properties are subject to spiritual, temporal and ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Malankara Metropolitan. The Patriarch's claim of control over the temporal affairs of the Malankara Church was rejected. It was also rejected in the Seminary Suit filed in 1879. The effort made by the Patriarch faction appears to be for the temporal gains under the guise of supremacy of the Patriarch as the Vicar and Priests have the power of management in addition to performing the religious duties. The submission that the 1934 Constitution has been breached by the Catholicos cannot be accepted. There is not only violation of the binding judgment of 1995 by the Patriarch faction but also of other binding precedents too. 8.19. The submission that the 1934 Constitution has been breached by the Catholicos cannot be accepted. There is not only violation of the binding judgment of 1995 by the Patriarch faction but also of other binding precedents too. 8.19. In K.S. Varghese, it was argued before the Apex Court that the 1995 judgment was rendered to reconcile the two warring faction. The conduct of the Catholicos in refusing to recognise the Patriarch undermines the 1995 judgment. The Apex Court noticed that, as a matter of fact when execution of 1995 judgment was pending, in spite of appointment of Mr. Justice Malimath with consent of the parties to hold the elections, the Patriarch faction took up different stance in gross violation of dictum, and there was breach of Constitution on its part. It was bent upon to circumvent 1995 judgment and created illegally a parallel system of administration and also formed the Constitution 2002 which was totally uncalled for and an impermissible action. After formation of the Constitution of 2002 they held separate meetings of Patriarch groups, and entire system was usurped. This resulted in various law and order problems as projected in the case and Parish Churches remained closed for quite some time. Once there is a Malankara Church it has to remain as such. No group or denomination can take away the Church and form another group for its management as that would virtually tantamount to usurping its properties and the Church itself. When the Church has been created and is for the benefit of beneficiaries, it is not open for beneficiaries even by majority to usurp its property or management. 8.20. In K.S. Varghese, it was argued that Samudayam Suit has no bearing on the present proceedings. It was submitted that Samudayam Suit was with respect to the common trust property of the Malankara Church. Repelling the said argument, the Apex Court noticed that the dispute in Samudayam Suit was with respect to community property. But, considering the rival claims, various issues which were raised had been gone into and the findings had been recorded thereupon, in order to decide the said controversy, which are binding as the suit was a representative suit. Thus the issues which have been decided in the suit, cannot be reopened, including the question of adoption of the 1934 Constitution, its validity and binding nature. Thus the issues which have been decided in the suit, cannot be reopened, including the question of adoption of the 1934 Constitution, its validity and binding nature. The applicability and legality of the 1934 Constitution was questioned in the Samudayam Suit. A ground was raised that by formation of the 1934 Constitution, supremacy of the Patriarch has been taken away. The Court in the 1995 judgment construed Samudayam judgment and there is no scope to differ with the same. 8.21. In K.S. Varghese, before the Apex Court, it was submitted that, as the Catholicos have repudiated the supremacy of the Patriarch, they have not come to the Court with clean hands. Relying upon Mohammadia Co-operative Building Society Ltd. vs. Lakshmi Srinivasan Cooperative Building Society Ltd. (2008) 7 SCC 310 , it was submitted that the discretionary relief in a suit for specific performance cannot be granted to a plaintiff who has come to the Court with a pair of dirty hands. The Apex Court found that the Patriarch faction is more to be blamed for disorder in the Churches than the Catholicos faction. They ought to have followed the 1995 judgment and other decisions. That they have not done and have insisted upon their own system of management that is not permissible. 8.22. In K.S. Varghese, in the case of Mannathoor Church, it was argued that the Church is having its own Constitution in the form of an Udambadi of 1980, which was a registered document, which will prevail over the 1934 Constitution. Repelling the said contention, the Apex Court held that the High Court has found that in fact the Church had been administered by the 1934 Constitution. The 1934 Constitution is applicable to the Parish Churches under the Malankara Church. The submission that the Udampady will prevail cannot be accepted in view of the provisions made in Section 132 of the 1934 Constitution to the effect that all agreements which are not consistent with the provisions of the Constitution are made ineffective and annulled and also in view of the finding in the 1958 Samudayam matter that the Constitution had been validly adopted and is applicable. The question cannot be re-agitated and reopened under the guise of Udampady. Udampady cannot hold the field for administration of such Parish Churches. Udampady is not a document by which the Church came to be established. The question cannot be re-agitated and reopened under the guise of Udampady. Udampady cannot hold the field for administration of such Parish Churches. Udampady is not a document by which the Church came to be established. It is with respect to its management only. Udampady cannot prevail over the Constitution that has been adopted for all Malankara Churches and is holding the field. The registration of the Udampady cannot make it superior than the Constitution and the latter will prevail as found by the Court in earlier decisions. The finding is binding, conclusive and has to be respected. Even otherwise, Udampady cannot hold the field. 8.23. In K.S. Varghese, relying upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognises the right to form an association, and further goes on to state that no one can be compelled to be a part of an association, it was argued before the Apex Court that the right to form an association under Article 19(1)(c) also carries with it the negative right, i.e. the right not to be a part of an association. It was argued that, the 1995 judgment cannot be read as if the appellant Church cannot leave the Malankara Association, as the same would result in infringement of the fundamental rights of the majority of the Parishioners, who belong to Patriarch faction. The Apex Court repelled the said contentions for various reasons. Firstly, no one can deny the right under Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. There is no compulsion with any of the Parishioners to be part of the Malankara Church or Parish Church. There can be an exercise of unfettered volition not to be a part of an association but the question is whether one can form another association within the same association and to run a parallel system of management of the very same church, which is not permissible. Leaving a Church is not the right denied but the question is whether the existing Malankara Church can be regulated otherwise than by the 1934 Constitution. If the effort of certain group of Patriarch otherwise is to form a new Constitution of 2002 to appoint Vicars, Priests, etc., giving a go by to the 1934 Constitution and to form a new Church under the guise of same Malankara Church, it is not permissible. If the effort of certain group of Patriarch otherwise is to form a new Constitution of 2002 to appoint Vicars, Priests, etc., giving a go by to the 1934 Constitution and to form a new Church under the guise of same Malankara Church, it is not permissible. The Malankara Church, its properties and other matters are to be governed by the 1934 Constitution and even majority of Parishioners has no right to take away and usurp the Church itself or to create new system of management contrary to the 1934 Constitution. It was a trust created as Malankara Church that is supreme, for once a trust always a trust. 8.24. In K.S. Varghese, the Apex Court has laid down that, as per the 1934 Constitution it is clear that while individual Parishioners may choose to leave the Church, there is no question of even a majority of the Parishioners in the Parish Assembly by themselves being able to take the movable or immovable properties out of the ambit of the 1934 Constitution, without the approval of the Church hierarchy. The Parish Assembly can pass bye-laws that are not inconsistent with the principles contained in the Constitution. The Diocesan Assembly or the Diocesan Council can also suggest and submit to the Managing Committee through the Rule Committee for consideration as provided in Section 129. All agreements, offices and practices which are not consistent with the provisions of the Constitution are made ineffective and have been annulled as provided in Section 132 contained in Part 13 Miscellaneous'. After referring to the various provisions in the 1934 Constitution, the Apex Court held that, various provisions of the Constitution make it clear that there is a hierarchy of control and Parish Church properties cannot be dealt with otherwise the provisions contained in Section 23 as to the written consent of the Diocesan Metropolitan and the detailed system of management, appointment of Vicar and the Kaisthani, Parish Assembly, as also the power to spend certain amounts, as provided in Section 22 of the Constitution. The accounts are supervised and to be signed by the Diocesan Metropolitan. Similarly the acquisition of any immovable property for the Diocese can be with the written consent of the Malankara Metropolitan. It is apparent from the aforesaid provisions that there is a hierarchy of control that is provided with respect to the Church properties also. The accounts are supervised and to be signed by the Diocesan Metropolitan. Similarly the acquisition of any immovable property for the Diocese can be with the written consent of the Malankara Metropolitan. It is apparent from the aforesaid provisions that there is a hierarchy of control that is provided with respect to the Church properties also. The community trustees are also provided for the Vattipanam, that is, Trust Fund. Section 94 provides for the temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual control of the Malankara Metropolitan. Catholicos can also hold the office of Malankara Metropolitan. The Episcopal Synod has the power to consecrate Cathlicos. Whatever autonomy is there, is provided in the Constitution for the Churches for necessary expenditure as provided in Section 22, otherwise it is episcopal nature of the Church and once the property vests in Malankara Church, it remains vested in it and cannot be taken away and in case there is any dispute with respect to faith, etc. it has to be decided by the Episcopal Synod and in case any bye-law is to be changed, its remedy is available under the provisions of Sections 126, 127 and 129. Faction of Parish cannot decide against the Constitution. Bye-laws must conform to the Constitution. The income has to be distributed as per Sections 120 to 123. 8.25. In K.S. Varghese, it was argued that, by majority, decision can be taken to opt out of the 1934 Constitution by the Parish Assembly and to form a new church under a new name, as has been done in 2002. The Apex Court opined that the Constitution prohibits such a course. Even bye-laws that do not conform to Constitution cannot be framed and that has to be placed before Rule Committee under Sections 126, 127 and 129. In existing system of Malankara Church, a Parish Church that is a part of Malankara Church cannot be usurped even by majority in Church under the guise of formation of new Church. The existing majority at a given time in any Parish Church cannot be permitted to take away the assets of the church at the expense of those who adhere to the original Trust. 8.26. In K.S. Varghese, the Apex Court noticed that, the majority view in the 1995 judgment refused to give declaration with respect to property in the absence of Parish Churches. 8.26. In K.S. Varghese, the Apex Court noticed that, the majority view in the 1995 judgment refused to give declaration with respect to property in the absence of Parish Churches. However it was observed that the 1934 Constitution shall govern and regulate the affairs of the Parish Churches insofar as the Constitution provides for the same. In the absence of any further prayer made, suffice it to hold that the 1934 Constitution shall govern the affairs of the Parish Churches in respect of temporal matters also insofar as it so provides and discussed by the Court. The Malankara Church is Episcopal to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 Constitution, as held in the 1995 judgment. The 1934 Constitution governs the affairs of Parish Malankara Churches and shall prevail. Otherwise, also, property cannot be taken away by the majority or otherwise and it will remain in Trust as it has been for the time immemorial for the sake of beneficiaries. It is for the benefit of beneficiaries. No one can become owners by majority decision or permitted to usurp Church itself. It has to remain in perpetual succession for the purpose it has been created a Malankara Church. The Parish Assembly by majority cannot take away the property and divert it to a separate and different Church that is not a Malankara Church administered as per the 1934 Constitution, though it is open to amend the Constitution of 1934. As the basic documents of creation of Church have not been placed on record, usage and custom for determining the competing claims of rival factions becomes relevant. In K.S. Varghese, the Apex Court held that, the 2002 Constitution cannot hold the field to govern the appellant Churches and the 1934 Constitution is binding. Finding recorded by the High Court that the Kolencherry Church was not administered by the 1913 Udampady and was administered in accordance with the 1934 Constitution, is correct at least after the Constitution was adopted. General body meeting of 08.03.1959 has adopted the 1934 Constitution. Udampady cannot hold the field by virtue of Section 132 of the Constitution and there is other oral evidence that had been assessed by the High Court including the documentary evidence and the Udampady cannot be taken to govern. General body meeting of 08.03.1959 has adopted the 1934 Constitution. Udampady cannot hold the field by virtue of Section 132 of the Constitution and there is other oral evidence that had been assessed by the High Court including the documentary evidence and the Udampady cannot be taken to govern. Moreover in view of the findings in the 1958 Samudayam Suit and the 1995 judgment, the Constitution of 1934 is binding which has been held to be valid and Malankara Church has to be administered as per the provisions contained therein. Thus Udampady of 1913 cannot be set up or used as ploy to avoid the provisions of the 1934 Constitution. Thus the main plank of submissions is also barred by the principle of res-judicata. 8.27. In K.S. Varghese, before the Apex Court it was argued that, once the Parish Assembly decided in 1959 to go by the 1934 Constitution, it could also take a decision to go by the Udampady of 1913. It was further submitted that the 1913 Udampady operates as the Constitution of individual Parish Church. 1913 Udampady is a registered document and has to prevail over unregistered Constitution. The Apex Court noticed that the Church was created way back in the 7th century. The Udampady of 1913 is not a document of creation of the Trust. The then in-charge person executed it just for the management of the Church in question. The 1934 Constitution after being adopted in 1959 by the Church is binding. The Udampady of 1913 has lost its efficacy and utility. The Udampady stands annulled by Section 132 of the Constitution. It cannot be revived. Thus it is not open to the Church or Parishioners by majority to wriggle out of the 1934 Constitution. In view of the findings recorded in the Samudayam Suit and also by the 1995 judgment, the question operates as res judicata and the administration on the basis of Udampady cannot be claimed. The inconsistent provisions in the Udampady shall stand annulled as per Section 132 of the 1934 Constitution. There are inconsistencies between the 1934 Constitution and 1913 Udampady as such the latter cannot prevail. In terms of Section 132, any Udampady (agreement) which is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1932 constitution stands annulled and is ineffective. The inconsistent provisions in the Udampady shall stand annulled as per Section 132 of the 1934 Constitution. There are inconsistencies between the 1934 Constitution and 1913 Udampady as such the latter cannot prevail. In terms of Section 132, any Udampady (agreement) which is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1932 constitution stands annulled and is ineffective. After noticing certain inconsistencies between the provisions of the 1913 Udambady and the 1934 Constitution (quoted in Para.214 @ Pages 504 to 506 of SCC) the Apex Court held that, in view of those inconsistencies, as well as in light of the findings of the 1959 judgment and the 1995 judgment regarding the validity and the binding character of the 1934 constitution, the 1913 Udampady would, in any event, no longer survive and the Parish Church would be governed in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. 8.28. In K.S. Varghese, the Apex Court held that the Udampadies were for administration of the Church at the relevant time and lost their efficacy due to efflux of time and cannot hold the field in view of the system of administration provided in the 1934 Constitution. The 1934 Constitution was not required to be registered document as the Udampadies are not documents of creation of trusts, the Udampadies were not required to be registered. Udampady cannot prevail over the 1934 Constitution for various reasons discussed in the judgment. The Apex Court opined that, the 1934 Constitution does not create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, in the Malankara Church properties. It provides a system of administration as such and not required to be registered, and moreover the question of effect of nonregistration of the 1934 Constitution cannot be raised in view of the findings recorded in the 1959 and the 1995 judgments. The question could, and ought to have been raised but was not raised at the time of authoritative pronouncement made by the Court. Otherwise also, facts have not been pleaded nor any provision of the Constitution pointed out that may attract the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. Thus, it is not open to question the validity of the 1934 Constitution on the ground that it cannot be looked into for want of its registration. 8.29. Otherwise also, facts have not been pleaded nor any provision of the Constitution pointed out that may attract the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. Thus, it is not open to question the validity of the 1934 Constitution on the ground that it cannot be looked into for want of its registration. 8.29. In K.S. Varghese, on the question of maintainability of Mannathoor Church suit, it was contended that, the suit was not maintainable. The suit was not of a representative character and in view of Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, fresh leave was not sought when the reliefs were amended and enlarged. Repelling the said contentions, the Apex Court held that, the suit was clearly representative in character and has been conducted in that manner. It was not necessary to adopt the procedure as suggested after amendment, as the amended relief was traceable from the main relief. Therefore, it was not at all necessary to obtain fresh leave. Para.224 of the decision in K.S. Varghese reads thus: “(viii) Maintainability of Mannathoor Church suit:- 224. It was also submitted by Shri Mohan Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel that the Mannathoor Church matter suit was not maintainable. It was not of a representative character and in view of Order I Rule 8 CPC, fresh leave was not sought when the reliefs were amended and enlarged. We are not satisfied with the submissions raised. The suit was clearly representative in character and has been contested in that manner. It was not necessary to adopt the procedure as suggested after amendment as the amended relief was traceable from the main relief. It was not at all necessary to obtain fresh leave.” 8.30. In K.S. Varghese, it was submitted that, the Court should direct framing of a scheme under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the decisions of the Privy Council in Mohd. Ismile Ariff vs. Ahmed Moolla Dowood, (1915-16) 43 IA 127, Acharyashri Sripti Prasadji vs. Barot Laxmidas Dungere Bai, (1928-29) 33 CWN 352 and Ram Dularey vs. Ram Lal, AIR 1946 PC 34 . Dealing with that submission, the Apex Court opined that, there is no necessity of framing any scheme under Section 92 of the Code. There are adequate provisions and safeguards provided in the 1934 Constitution for managing the Malankara Church and its properties. Dealing with that submission, the Apex Court opined that, there is no necessity of framing any scheme under Section 92 of the Code. There are adequate provisions and safeguards provided in the 1934 Constitution for managing the Malankara Church and its properties. There is no dispute with the proposition laid down in the aforesaid decisions but the Apex Court found no such necessity for framing such scheme under Section 92 of the Code, in view of detailed wholesome provisions of the 1934 Constitution. Paras.225 and 226 of the decision in K.S. Varghese read thus: “(ix) Framing of scheme under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code:- 225. We are also not impressed by the submission that the Court should direct framing of a scheme under Section 92 CPC in view of the decision of the Privy Council in Mohd. Ismile Ariff vs. Ahmed Moolla Dowood, (1915-16) 43 IA 127 in which it has been held that the Court has the power to give direction and lay down rules that may facilitate the work of management and the appointment of trustees in the future. The primary duty of the Court is to consider the interest of the general body of the public for whose benefit the trust is created. Reliance has been placed by Shri S. Divan, learned Senior Counsel on Acharyashri Sripti Prasadji vs. Barot Laxmidas Dungere Bai, (1928-29) 33 CWN 352 that the institutional trust must be respected by the sect and the body of worshippers for whose benefit it was set up to have the protection of the Court against their property being subject to abuse, speculation and waste. Reliance was also placed on Ram Dularey vs. Ram Lal, AIR 1946 PC 34 in which it has been laid down thus: “Even if there were an inconsistency in that judgment, their Lordships would be very slow to disturb the safeguards which are provided in that scheme, if their Lordships found it necessary to reconsider the scheme; but in their view the scheme has been definitely approved by the Chief Court and they see no reason for interfering with the judgment. It has to be remembered that in these cases the Court has a duty, once it finds that it is a trust for public purposes to consider what is best in the interests of the public. It has to be remembered that in these cases the Court has a duty, once it finds that it is a trust for public purposes to consider what is best in the interests of the public. That is made abundantly clear by the judge met of this Board, delivered by Mr. Ameer Ali, in Mohd. Ismaile Ariff vs. Ahmed Moolla Dowood, (1915-16) 43 IA 127.” (Emphasis supplied) 226. In our opinion there is no necessity of framing any scheme under Section 92. There are adequate provisions and safeguards provided in Section 92 [quaere 1934 Constitution] for managing the Malankara Church and its properties. There is no dispute with the proposition laid down in the aforesaid decisions but we find no such necessity for framing such scheme under Section 92 CPC in view of detailed wholesome provisions of 1934 Constitution.” 8.31. In K.S. Varghese, one of the questions raised was as to whether in the facts of those cases, the interim arrangement can be continued. It was submitted before the Apex Court that, as reconciliation does not appear to be possible between both factions, as such the religious services in the St. Mary's Orthodox Church, Varikoli may be permitted to be conducted by two Vicars of each faith, Patriarch and Catholicos, in accordance with the faith of each denomination. The Apex Court rejected the said prayer, as it would tantamount to patronising parallel system of administration and would not be a legally permissible mode. Para-227 of the decision in K.S. Varghese reads thus: “(x) Whether in the facts interim arrangement to continue: 227. Lastly, it was submitted by Shri K. Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel, that as reconciliation does not appear to be possible between both factions, as such the religious services in the St. Mary's Orthodox Church, Varikoli may be permitted to be conducted by two Vicars of each faith, Patriarch and Catholicos, in accordance with the faith of each denomination. The submission cannot be accepted as it would tantamount to patronising parallel system of administration and would not be a legally permissible mode hence prayer is rejected.” 8.32. In K.S. Varghese, based on the aforesaid findings in the judgment, the main conclusions of the Apex Court in Para-228 read thus: “228. Resultantly, based on the aforesaid findings in the judgment, our main conclusions, inter-alia, are as follows: 228.1. In K.S. Varghese, based on the aforesaid findings in the judgment, the main conclusions of the Apex Court in Para-228 read thus: “228. Resultantly, based on the aforesaid findings in the judgment, our main conclusions, inter-alia, are as follows: 228.1. Malankara Church is Episcopal in character to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 Constitution. The 1934 Constitution fully governs the affairs of the Parish Churches and shall prevail. 228.2. The decree in the 1995 judgment is completely in tune with the judgment. There is no conflict between the judgment and the decree. 228.3. The 1995 judgment arising out of the representative suit is binding and operates as res-judicata with respect to the matters it has decided, in the wake of provisions of Order I Rule 8 and Explanation 6 to Section 11 CPC. The same binds not only the parties named in the suit but all those who have interest in the Malankara Church. Findings in earlier representative suit, i.e. Samudayam suit are also binding on Parish Churches/Parishioners to the extent issues have been decided. 228.4. As the 1934 Constitution is valid and binding upon the Parish Churches, it is not open to any individual Church, to decide to have their new Constitution like that of 2002 in the so - called exercise of right under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution of India. It is also not permissible to create a parallel system of management in the churches under the guise of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch. 228.5. The Primate of Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is Catholicos. He enjoys spiritual powers as well, as the Malankara Metropolitan. Malankara Metropolitan has the prime jurisdiction regarding temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administration of Malankara Church subject to the riders provided in the 1934 Constitution. 228.6. Full effect has to be given to the finding that the spiritual power of the Patriarch has reached to a vanishing point. Consequently, he cannot interfere in the governance of Parish Churches by appointing Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests), etc. and thereby cannot create a parallel system of administration. The appointment has to be made as per the power conferred under the 1934 Constitution on the concerned Diocese, Metropolitan, etc. concerned. 228.7. Consequently, he cannot interfere in the governance of Parish Churches by appointing Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests), etc. and thereby cannot create a parallel system of administration. The appointment has to be made as per the power conferred under the 1934 Constitution on the concerned Diocese, Metropolitan, etc. concerned. 228.7. Though it is open to the individual member to leave a Church in exercise of the right not to be a member of any Association and as per Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Parish Assembly of the Church by majority or otherwise cannot decide to move church out of the Malankara Church. Once a trust, is always a trust. 228.8. When the Church has been created and is for the benefit of the beneficiaries, it is not open for the beneficiaries, even by a majority, to usurp its property or management. The Malankara Church is in the form of a trust in which, its properties have vested. As per the 1934 Constitution, the parishioners though may individually leave the Church, they are not permitted to take the movable or immovable properties out of the ambit of 1934 Constitution without the approval of the Church hierarchy. 228.9. The spiritual power of Patriarch has been set up by the appellants clearly in order to violate the mandate of the 1995 judgment of this Court which is binding on the Patriarch, Catholicos and all concerned. 228.10. As per the historical background and the practices which have been noted, the Patriarch is not to exercise the power to appoint Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates etc. Such powers are reserved to other authorities in the Church hierarchy. The Patriarch, thus, cannot be permitted to exercise the power in violation of the 1934 Constitution to create a parallel system of administration of Churches as done in 2002 and onwards. 228.11. This Court has held in 1995 that the unilateral exercise of such power by the Patriarch was illegal. The said decision has also been violated. It was only in the alternative this Court held in the 1995 judgment that even if he has such power, he could not have exercised the same unilaterally which we have explained in this judgment. 228.12. It is open to the Parishioners to believe in the spiritual supremacy of Patriarch or apostolic succession but it cannot be used to appoint Vicars, Priests, Deacons, Prelates, etc. 228.12. It is open to the Parishioners to believe in the spiritual supremacy of Patriarch or apostolic succession but it cannot be used to appoint Vicars, Priests, Deacons, Prelates, etc. in contravention of the 1934 Constitution. 228.13. Malankara Church is episcopal to the extent as provided in the 1934 Constitution, and the right is possessed by the Diocese to settle all internal matters and elect their own Bishops in terms of the said Constitution. 228.14. Appointment of Vicar is a secular matter. There is no violation of any of the rights encompassed under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution of India, if the appointment of Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests), etc. is made as per the 1934 Constitution. The Patriarch has no power to interfere in such matters under the guise of spiritual supremacy unless the 1934 Constitution is amended in accordance with law. The same is binding on all concerned. 228.15. Udampadis do not provide for appointment of Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates etc. Even otherwise once the 1934 Constitution has been adopted, the appointment of Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (high priests), etc. is to be as per the 1934 Constitution. It is not within the domain of the spiritual right of the Patriarch to appoint Vicar, Priests etc. The spiritual power also vests in the other functionaries of Malankara Church. 228.16. The functioning of the Church is based upon the division of responsibilities at various levels and cannot be usurped by a single individual howsoever high he may be. The division of powers under the 1934 Constitution is for the purpose of effective management of the Church and does not militate against the basic character of the church being Episcopal in nature as mandated thereby. The 1934 Constitution cannot be construed to be opposed to the concept of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch. It cannot as well, be said to be an instrument of injustice or vehicle of oppression on the Parishioners who believe in the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch. 228.17. The Church and the cemetry cannot be confiscated by anybody. It has to remain with the parishioners as per the customary rights and nobody can be deprived of the right to enjoy the same as a parishioner in the Church or to be buried honourably in the cemetery, in case he continues to have faith in the Malankara Church. 228.17. The Church and the cemetry cannot be confiscated by anybody. It has to remain with the parishioners as per the customary rights and nobody can be deprived of the right to enjoy the same as a parishioner in the Church or to be buried honourably in the cemetery, in case he continues to have faith in the Malankara Church. The property of the Malankara Church in which is also vested the property of the Parish Churches, would remain in trust as it has for the time immemorial for the sake of the beneficiaries and no one can claim to be owners thereof even by majority and usurp the Church and the properties. 228.18. The faith of Church is unnecessarily sought to be divided vis-à-vis the office of Catholicos and the Patriarch as the common faith of the Church is in Jesus Christ. In fact an effort is being made to take over the management and other powers by raising such disputes as to supremacy of Patriarch or Catholicos to gain control of temporal matters under the garb of spirituality. There is no good or genuine cause for disputes which have been raised. 228.19. The authority of Patriarch had never extended to the government of temporalities of the Churches. By questioning the action of the Patriarch and his undue interference in the administration of Churches in violation of the 1995 judgment, it cannot be said that the Catholicos faction is guilty of repudiating the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch. The Patriarch faction is to be blamed for the situation which has been created post 1995 judgment. The property of the Church is to be managed as per the 1934 Constitution. The judgment of 1995 has not been respected by the Patriarch faction which was binding on all concerned. Filing of writ petitions in the High Court by the Catholicos faction was to deter the Patriarch/his representatives to appoint the Vicar, etc. in violation of the 1995 judgment of this Court. 228.20. The 1934 Constitution is enforceable at present and the plea of its frustration or breach is not available to the Patriarch faction. Once there is Malankara Church, it has to remain as such including the property. No group or denomination by majority or otherwise can take away the management or the property as that would virtually tantamount to illegal interference in the management and illegal usurpation of its properties. Once there is Malankara Church, it has to remain as such including the property. No group or denomination by majority or otherwise can take away the management or the property as that would virtually tantamount to illegal interference in the management and illegal usurpation of its properties. It is not open to the beneficiaries even by majority to change the nature of the Church, its property and management. The only method to change management is to amend the Constitution of 1934 in accordance with law. It is not open to the Parish Churches to even frame bye-laws in violation of the provisions of the 1934 Constitution. 228.21. The Udampadies of 1890 and 1913 are with respect to administration of Churches and are not documents of the creation of the Trust and are not of utility at present and even otherwise cannot hold the field containing provisions inconsistent with the 1934 Constitution, as per Section 132 thereof. The Udampady also cannot hold the field in view of the authoritative pronouncements made by this Court in the earlier judgments as to the binding nature of the 1934 Constitution. 228.22. The 1934 Constitution does not create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or future any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent in the Malankara Church properties and only provides a system of administration and as such is not required to be registered. In any case, the Udampadis for the reasons already cited, cannot supersede the 1934 Constitution only because these are claimed to be registered. 228.23. In otherwise episcopal Church, whatever autonomy is provided in the Constitution for the Churches is for management and necessary expenditure as provided in Section 22, etc. 228.24. The formation of 2002 Constitution is the result of illegal and void exercise. It cannot be recognised and the parallel system created thereunder for administration of Parish Churches of Malankara Church cannot hold the field. It has to be administered under the 1934 Constitution. 228.25. It was not necessary, after amendment of the plaint in Mannathur Church matter, to adopt the procedure once again of representative suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC. It remained a representative suit and proper procedure has been followed. It was not necessary to obtain fresh leave. 228.26. It has to be administered under the 1934 Constitution. 228.25. It was not necessary, after amendment of the plaint in Mannathur Church matter, to adopt the procedure once again of representative suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC. It remained a representative suit and proper procedure has been followed. It was not necessary to obtain fresh leave. 228.26. The 1934 Constitution is appropriate and adequate for management of the Parish Churches, as such there is no necessity of framing a scheme under Section 92 of CPC. 228.27. The plea that in face of the prevailing dissension between the two factions and the remote possibility of reconciliation, the religious services may be permitted to be conducted by two Vicars of each faith cannot be accepted as that would amount to patronising parallel systems of administration. 228.28. Both the factions, for the sake of the sacred religion they profess and to pre-empt further bickering and unpleasantness precipitating avoidable institutional degeneration, ought to resolve their differences if any, on a common platform if necessary by amending the Constitution further in accordance with law, but by no means, any attempt to create parallel systems of administration of the same Churches resulting in law and order situations leading to even closure of the Churches can be accepted.” 9. In Mathews Mar Koorilos (dead) and Another vs. M. Pappy (dead) and Another, (2018) 9 SCC 672 the appellants/plaintiffs, namely, the Metropolitan of Quilon Diocese of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and the Vicar appointed by him for St. Mary's Church, Kattachira filed O.S. No. 187 of 1977 against the Parishioners of the Church, seeking a declaration that they have exclusive right to conduct religious services in the plaint Church, Cemetery and Kiurisumthotty and prayed for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and others who do not obey the plaintiffs from entering the plaint Church and plaint schedule properties. The case of the plaintiffs was that as per Ext.A3 (original of which is Ext.B19) assignment-cum-gift deed dated 29.06.1972, the 1st defendant C.K. Koshy assigned the plaint schedule properties along with the Church and Cemetery, etc. situated thereon, to the Metropolitan, Quilon Diocese and that they are entitled to conduct religious services and to manage the Church and its properties. The Parishioners who question such authority are not entitled to hold any office as members of the Church Committee or to enter the Church. 9.1. situated thereon, to the Metropolitan, Quilon Diocese and that they are entitled to conduct religious services and to manage the Church and its properties. The Parishioners who question such authority are not entitled to hold any office as members of the Church Committee or to enter the Church. 9.1. On the other hand, the respondents/defendants who are said to be the representatives of the Parishioners contended that the Church was founded with the object of conducting religious services by religious dignitaries who possess the spiritual grace transmitted from the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, for the benefit of the Parishioners. The Church and its properties constitute a trust and can be used only for the purpose for which it was founded. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs have repudiated and defied the spiritual powers of the Patriarch and the plaintiffs are not entitled to conduct any religious services in the plaint Church. According to them, the plaint Church is administered under the Constitution framed by the Parishioners marked as Ext.B9 dated 23.01.1959 and no Priest can function in the Church without the consent of the Parishioners. 9.2. The Parishioners filed a separate suit in O.S. No. 17 of 1976 challenging the validity of Ext.A3 assignment-cum-gift deed dated 29.06.1972 in favour of Quilon Metropolitan. On the same grounds taken by them in O.S. No. 187 of 1977, they alleged that as beneficiaries of the Church and as its Managing Committee Members, they are entitled to see that its properties are not lost. They prayed for a decree declaring that Ext.A3 assignment-cum-gift deed is ab initio void and for a perpetual injunction restraining the Metropolitan from implementing any of the provisions in the said document. 9.3. The trial court by a common judgment dated 06.03.1986 dismissed the suit O.S. No. 17 of 1976 filed by the Parishioners and decreed O.S. No. 187 of 1977 filed by the Metropolitan and Vikar, declaring that they have the right to conduct religious services in the plaint Church and Cemetery. The trial court granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants in O.S. No. 187 of 1977 and persons who do not obey the plaintiffs from entering the Church and the plaint schedule properties and conducting religious services, and obstructing others who obey the plaintiffs. The trial court granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants in O.S. No. 187 of 1977 and persons who do not obey the plaintiffs from entering the Church and the plaint schedule properties and conducting religious services, and obstructing others who obey the plaintiffs. The defendants were also restrained from obstructing the plaintiffs in completing the construction of the Kattachira Church building or attending to its repairs. 9.4. The common judgment dated 06.03.1986 of the trial court was under challenge before this Court in A.S. Nos.140 of 1986 & 142 of 1986 filed by the Parishioners. The learned Single Judge dismissed both the appeals holding, inter-alia, that in view of the unambiguous terms in Ext.A3, the Parishioners are not entitled to question the right of Metropolitan over the plaint Church and its properties and his right to conduct religious services. The 1934 Constitution shall govern and regulate the affairs of the Parish Churches too, which are not exempted from the clauses of that Constitution, and they are equally constituent of the Malankara Association, though it enjoys some degree of autonomy. The excommunication of Catholicos by the Patriarch and/or by the Universal Synod was held invalid. The learned Single Judge also held that, it is Vicar who should conduct the election as provided in 1934 Constitution. However, in order to allay the apprehension of both parties and to ensure that the election is free and fair and in accordance with 1934 Constitution, the learned Single Judge appointed two observers to oversee the process of election right from the beginning to ensure that the conditions in that Constitution and the directions of the Apex Court are followed. 9.5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the parishioners filed A.F.A. Nos. 26 of 1997 and 27 of 1997 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, by a common judgment dated 04.04.2000 in A.F.A. Nos. 26 of 1997 and 27 of 1997 and CRP No. 1314 of 1998 set aside the findings of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench held that, though the title of the properties vests with Quilon Diocese, the properties including Church, etc. under Ext.A3 assignment-cum-gift deed are still under the control and management of the Parishioners of St. Marys Syrian Church, Kattachira. The Division Bench held that, though the title of the properties vests with Quilon Diocese, the properties including Church, etc. under Ext.A3 assignment-cum-gift deed are still under the control and management of the Parishioners of St. Marys Syrian Church, Kattachira. The Metropolitan of Quilon Diocese had no authority to appoint Vicar for the control and management of the plaint Church and its properties though Ext.A3 assignment-cum-gift deed executed by C.K. Koshy in favour of Quilon Diocese and C.K. Koshy, executor of Ext.A3 intended to transfer his right in the properties for the benefit of entire members of the Church and that the Parishioners have the power to hold the movable and immovable properties of St. Mary's Church. The Division Bench held that the provisions of the 1934 Constitution sufficiently establish that the Parishioners have power to hold movable and immovable items of properties. 9.6. In Mathews Mar Koorilos the Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court observed that the issue of spiritual and temporal authority between Malankara Church and the Patriarch of Antioch has been the subject matter of several rounds of litigations in various matters right from the year 1879. It is not necessary for the Court to elaborately refer to those litigations; suffice to refer the litigations which led to the Constitution Bench judgment in Moram Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Thukalan Paulo Avira, AIR 1959 SC 31 the judgment of Three- Judges Bench in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 286 and the latest judgment in K.S. Varghese vs. St. Peter's and St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church, (2017) 15 SCC 333 . 9.7. Before the Three-Judge Bench it was contended that the conclusions arrived in K.S. Varghese are not in consonance with the judgment in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan. Repelling the said contention, the Three-Judge Bench held that the conclusions in Para-228 of K.S. Varghese are well in consonance with Thukalan Paulo Avira and Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan judgments. The detailed discussions and conclusions arrived at in Varghese K.S. settle the disputes between the appellant Patriarch and the respondent Malankara. 9.8. In Mathews Mar Koorilos the Three-Judge Bench reiterated that, as per the consistent view taken in Thukalan Paulo Avira, Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and K.S. Varghese, 1934 Constitution is valid and binding upon the Parishioners. The Parish Church has to be managed as per the powers conferred under the 1934 Constitution. 9.8. In Mathews Mar Koorilos the Three-Judge Bench reiterated that, as per the consistent view taken in Thukalan Paulo Avira, Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and K.S. Varghese, 1934 Constitution is valid and binding upon the Parishioners. The Parish Church has to be managed as per the powers conferred under the 1934 Constitution. It is not open to any individual church to have a parallel system of management in the churches under the guise of spiritual supremacy in the Patriarch. As per the consistent findings in the above judgments, the prime jurisdiction with respect to the temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administration of the Malankara Church is vested with Malankara Metropolitan and other authorities appointed by Malankara Metropolitan. Malankara Metropolitan enjoys all the temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administrative powers [Para-145 of K.S. Varghese]. As held in K.S. Varghese, full effect has to be given to the finding that the spiritual power of the Patriarch has reached to a vanishing point. Consequently, he cannot interfere in the governance of Parish Churches by appointing Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests), etc. and thereby cannot create a parallel system of administration. 9.9. In Mathews Mar Koorilos, on facts of the case, the Three- Judge Bench noticed that, the plaint Church, namely, St. Mary's Church, Kattachira was listed as Serial No. 41 among 1064 Parish Churches included in the plaint schedule in the representative suit, i.e. O.S. No. 4 of 1979. The recitals in Ext.A3 assignment-cum-gift deed executed by C.K. Koshy in favour of Metropolitan of Quilon Diocese make it clear that St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church, Kattachira and the properties have been gifted in favour of Malankara Metropolitan to be treated as Bhadrasanam properties, subject to the control of the Metropolitan in appointing Vicar, Priests, etc. Ext.A3 provided that the Metropolitan may directly administer the said properties or through his representatives. Ext.A3 further provided that the Parishioners and the Managing Committee should abide by the dictates of the Metropolitan from time to time. As per the recitals in Ext.A3, the plaint Church and the properties come under the spiritual and the temporal control of Malankara Metropolitan. 9.10. In Mathews Mar Koorilos, the Three-Judge Bench held that, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Thukalan Paulo Avira and P.M.A. Metropolitan, St. Mary's Church, Kattachira is bound by Ext.A1 1934 Constitution and the control of the Metropolitan. 9.10. In Mathews Mar Koorilos, the Three-Judge Bench held that, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Thukalan Paulo Avira and P.M.A. Metropolitan, St. Mary's Church, Kattachira is bound by Ext.A1 1934 Constitution and the control of the Metropolitan. Having held that the 1934 Constitution is binding upon the Parish Church and its Parishioners, the Division Bench of the High Court was not right in holding that the Metropolitan had no power to appoint Vicar, Priests, etc. The conclusion of the Division Bench that the Parishioners have the right to make all such appointments and to manage the affairs of St. Mary's Church, Kattachira is directly contrary to the express provisions of the 1934 Constitution and the findings of the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan. The Three-Judge Bench concluded that, considering the recitals in Ext.A3 and the judgments in Thukalan Paulo Avira and P.M.A. Metropolitan, the trial court and the learned Single Judge rightly held that St. Mary's Church, Kattachira is a constituent of Malankara and the power to appoint Vicar, Priests, etc. is vested with Malankara Metropolitan or his representatives. In Mathews Mar Koorilos, the Three-Judge Bench endorsed the view taken in K.S. Varghese [Para-146] that the 1934 Constitution cannot be said to be in violation of Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution of India. 10. In R.S.A. No. 197 of 2019, the Church in plaint A schedule property in O.S. No. 130 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ettumanoor, i.e. St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church (Pallipratchu Church), Neelimangalam is S. No. 570 in the schedule of 1064 Churches in O.S. No. 4 of 1979, which culminated in the decision in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan. In the written statement, defendants 1 and 3 contended that the Church is an independent religious trust, which is not bound by the 1934 Constitution. The Church was not a party in 1995 and 2001 decisions of the Apex Court and the mere fact that the name of the church is included in the schedule of 1064 Churches in O.S. No. 4 of 1974, which culminated in the decision in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan, will not make it party to that case. They contended that the Church was established in 1915 AD in the property gifted by one Pothen Korulla, Mangattukayil to the Jacobite Community, whose ecclesiastical head was Patriarch of Antioch. P.M.A. Metropolitan, will not make it party to that case. They contended that the Church was established in 1915 AD in the property gifted by one Pothen Korulla, Mangattukayil to the Jacobite Community, whose ecclesiastical head was Patriarch of Antioch. The intention of the said gift deed was to construct a Church fully belonging to Jacobite Syrian Christians, who accepted the Patriarch of Antioch as the religious head, and it was intended to serve the religious need of the Jacobite Syrian Community coming under the Holy See of Patriarch of Antioch. 10.1. In R.F.A. No. 174 of 2010, the 1st defendant Church in O.S. No. 31 of 2002 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam, i.e. St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, Marygiri is S. No. 636 in the schedule of 1064 Churches in O.S. No. 4 of 1979, which culminated in the decision in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan. In the written statement, defendants 1 to 3 contended that, the 1st defendant Church in its correct name or its Managing Committee or the Trustee has never been made party to any of the litigations either before the District Court, High Court or the Apex Court. Therefore, the decisions in those litigations are not binding on defendants 1 to 3. The 1st defendant Church has been constituted as per Udambady dated 05.03.1955. The intention, aims and objects of creation of the Church is discernible from the said Udambady and it is on the basis of that Udambady the affairs of the 1st defendant Church is being managed. The general assembly convened on 10.11.2002 approved and accepted the 2002 Constitution. 10.2. In R.F.A. No. 310 of 2010, the 1st defendant Church in O.S. No. 38 of 1999 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam, i.e. Sehiyon Church, Onakkoor is S. No. 643 in the schedule of 1064 Churches in O.S. No. 4 of 1979, which culminated in the decision in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan. In the written statement, defendants 10 to 13 contended that the 1st defendant Church never accepted the 1934 Constitution. It adopted the 2002 Constitution, which is in conformity to the faith for which the Church is established. The administration of the Church is being carried on, on the basis of the 2002 Constitution. 10.3. P.M.A. Metropolitan. In the written statement, defendants 10 to 13 contended that the 1st defendant Church never accepted the 1934 Constitution. It adopted the 2002 Constitution, which is in conformity to the faith for which the Church is established. The administration of the Church is being carried on, on the basis of the 2002 Constitution. 10.3. The conclusions of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese, which has already been dealt with in extenso in Paragraphs 8.4 to 8.32 hereinbefore, would make it explicitly clear that the findings in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan, which operates as res-judicata is about the binding nature of the 1934 Constitution on the Parishioners and Parish Churches. It is not open to the Parishioners to contend that they can have their independent Constitution and not bound by the 1934 Constitution. Repelling the contention that the Parish Churches, even after the 1934 Constitution, can decide to make their own Constitution in the exercise of their fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, so as to follow the faith of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch, the Apex Court opined that, it would not be open to any faction or group to adopt any particular system of management of Churches and to have a parallel system of managing authorities under the guise of spiritual supremacy. No group or denomination can take away the Church and form another group for its management as that would virtually tantamount to usurping its properties and the Church itself. When the Church has been created and is for the benefit of beneficiaries, it is not open for beneficiaries even by majority to usurp its property or management. The Parishioners can have faith in the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch but not in all the matters. They have to give equal importance in the matter of management of the 1934 Constitution and cannot be permitted to commit regular breach and devise ways to circumvent the judgment of the Court by one way or the other and under the garb of spiritual fight wrest the temporal control of the Churches. That the spiritual power of the Patriarch has reached to a vanishing point, has to be given the full meaning. That the spiritual power of the Patriarch has reached to a vanishing point, has to be given the full meaning. No person under the guise of spiritual faith can be permitted to destroy a system which is prevailing for the management of Parish Churches and go on forming Constitution as per his will time and again. There is no need of any such Constitution as is framed in the year 2002. In K.S. Varghese, it was submitted that, the Parishioners own the property of the Parish Church and the Cemetery and they cannot be deprived of that right by reason of the office holders of the Parish Churches by not subscribing to the 1934 Constitution. Rejecting the said submission, the Apex Court held that, the properties would always remain to be Malankara Church properties. Only office holders have to subscribe to the 1934 Constitution as held by the Court. The Parishioners can take no Church property away, neither Catholicos faction by majority and the submission is based on the misconception as to the nature of rights in such property. It has to remain in Malankara Church. Neither the Church nor the Cemetery can be confiscated by anybody. It has to remain with Parishioners as per the customary rights and nobody can be deprived of right one enjoys being a Parishioner in the Church or to be buried honourably in the Cemetery, in case he continues to have faith in Malankara Church. Once there is a Malankara Church it has to remain as such. No group or denomination can take away the Church and form another group for its management as that would virtually tantamount to usurping its properties and the Church itself. When the Church has been created and is for the benefit of beneficiaries, it is not open for beneficiaries even by majority to usurp its property or management. In K.S. Varghese, the Apex Court noticed that, to circumvent the 1995 judgment the Patriarch faction created illegally a parallel system of administration and also formed the 2002 Constitution, which was totally uncalled for and impermissible. After formation of the 2002 Constitution they held separate meetings of Patriarch groups, and entire system was usurped. In K.S. Varghese, the Apex Court noticed that, to circumvent the 1995 judgment the Patriarch faction created illegally a parallel system of administration and also formed the 2002 Constitution, which was totally uncalled for and impermissible. After formation of the 2002 Constitution they held separate meetings of Patriarch groups, and entire system was usurped. In the case of Mannathoor Church, it was argued that the Church is having its own Constitution in the form of an Udambadi of 1980, which was a registered document, which will prevail over the 1934 Constitution. Repelling the said contention, the Apex Court held that the 1934 Constitution is applicable to the Parish Churches under the Malankara Church. The submission that the Udampady will prevail cannot be accepted in view of the provisions made in Section 132 of the 1934 Constitution to the effect that all agreements which are not consistent with the provisions of the Constitution are made ineffective and annulled and also in view of the finding in the 1958 Samudayam matter that the Constitution had been validly adopted and is applicable. The question cannot be re-agitated and reopened under the guise of Udampady. Udampady cannot hold the field for administration of such Parish Churches. Udampady is not a document by which the Church came to be established. It is with respect to its management only. Udampady cannot prevail over the Constitution that has been adopted for all Malankara Churches and is holding the field. The Malankara Church, its properties and other matters are to be governed by the 1934 Constitution and even majority of Parishioners has no right to take away and usurp the Church itself or to create new system of management contrary to the 1934 Constitution. It was a trust created as Malankara Church that is supreme, for once a trust always a trust. In Mathews Mar Koorilos the Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court reiterated that, as per the consistent view taken in Thukalan Paulo Avira, Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and K.S. Varghese, 1934 Constitution is valid and binding upon the Parishioners. The Parish Church has to be managed as per the powers conferred under the 1934 Constitution. It is not open to any individual Church to have a parallel system of management in the Churches under the guise of spiritual supremacy in the Patriarch. P.M.A. Metropolitan and K.S. Varghese, 1934 Constitution is valid and binding upon the Parishioners. The Parish Church has to be managed as per the powers conferred under the 1934 Constitution. It is not open to any individual Church to have a parallel system of management in the Churches under the guise of spiritual supremacy in the Patriarch. As held in K.S. Varghese, full effect has to be given to the finding that the spiritual power of the Patriarch has reached to a vanishing point. 11. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with public charities. Sub-Section (1) of Section 92 provides that, in the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the Court may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust situate, to obtain a decree for any of the reliefs set out in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1). Clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) read thus: “(a) removing any trustee. (b) appointing a new trustee. (c) vesting any property in a trustee. (cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property. (d) directing accounts and inquiries. (e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust. (f) authorising the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged. (g) settling a scheme. (h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.” 11.1. (f) authorising the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged. (g) settling a scheme. (h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.” 11.1. Sub-Section (2) of Section 92 provides that, save as provided by the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 or by any corresponding law in force in the territories which, immediately before the 1st November, 1956, were comprised in Part B States, no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in sub-section (1) shall be instituted in respect of any such trust as is therein referred to except in conformity with the provisions of that sub-section. 11.2. In Madappa vs. M.N. Mahanthadevaru, AIR 1966 SC 878 a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Code provides for two classes of cases, namely, (i) where there is a breach of trust in a trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, and (ii) where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust. The reliefs to be sought in a suit under sub-section (1) of Section 92 are indicated in that section and include removal of any trustee, appointment of a new trustee, vesting of any property in a trustee, directing a removed trustee or person who has ceased to be a trustee to deliver possession of trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property, directing accounts and enquiries, declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust, authorisation of the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged, or settlement of a scheme. The nature of these reliefs will show that a suit under Section 92 may be filed when there is a breach of trust or when the administration of the trust generally requires improvement. 11.3. The nature of these reliefs will show that a suit under Section 92 may be filed when there is a breach of trust or when the administration of the trust generally requires improvement. 11.3. In Madappa's case (supra), the Apex Court observed that, clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 92 does not have the effect of circumscribing the powers of trustees or managers to carry on ordinary administration of trust property and to deal with it in such manner as they think best for the benefit of the trust and if necessary even to let, sell, mortgage or exchange it. Clause (f) was put in, inter-alia, to give power to the court to permit lease, sale, mortgage or exchange of property where, for example, there may be a prohibition in this regard in the trust deed relating to a public trust. There may be other situations where it may be necessary to alienate trust property which might require Court's sanction and that is why there is such a provision in clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 92. The Apex Court held that, clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 92 cannot be read in such a way as to hamper the ordinary administration of trust properties by trustees or managers thereof; and if that is so, there can be no invalidity in a provision in the scheme which directs the trustees or managers or, even one out of two co-managers when they cannot agree to obtain directions of the court with respect to the disposal or alienation of the property belonging to the trust. 11.4. In R. Venugopala Naidu vs. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities, (1989) Supp. 2 SCC 356 the Apex Court held that, a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a suit of a special nature for the protection of public rights in the public trusts and charities. The suit is fundamentally on behalf of the entire body of persons who are interested in the trust. It is for the vindication of public rights. 11.5. In Swami Shankaranand vs. Mahant Sri Sadguru Sarnanad, (2008) 14 SCC 642 the Apex Court held that, Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for special power of the court in regard to public trusts both charitable and religious and in a case of this nature, the judiciary exercises the jurisdiction of parens patriae. 11.6. 11.5. In Swami Shankaranand vs. Mahant Sri Sadguru Sarnanad, (2008) 14 SCC 642 the Apex Court held that, Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for special power of the court in regard to public trusts both charitable and religious and in a case of this nature, the judiciary exercises the jurisdiction of parens patriae. 11.6. In Madappa vs. M.N. Mahanthadevaru, AIR 1966 SC 878 a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, the main purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 92 of Code is to give protection to public trusts of a charitable or religious nature from being subjected to harassment by suits being filed against them. That is why it provides that suits under that section can only be filed either by the Advocate General or two or more persons having an interest in the trust with the [consent in writing of the Advocate General]. The object is that before the Advocate General files a suit or gives his consent for filing a suit, he would satisfy himself that there is a prima facie case either of breach of trust or of the necessity for obtaining directions of the court. 11.7. In Harnam Singh vs. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1415 a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court reiterated the view of the Privy Council in the decision in Vaidvanatha Ayyar vs. Swaminatha Ayyar, AIR 192 PC 221 that, the object of Section 92 of the Code is to prevent people interfering by virtue of this Section in the administration of charitable trusts merely in the interests of others and without any real interests of their own. 11.8. In R.M. Narayana Chettiar vs. N. Lakshmanan Chettiar, (1991) 1 SCC 48 the Apex Court held that, under Section 92 of the Code leave of the court is a pre-condition or a condition precedent for the institution of a suit against a public trust for the reliefs set out in the said Section; unless all the beneficiaries join in instituting the suit, if such a suit is instituted without leave, it would not be maintainable at all. 11.9. In Vidyodaya Trust vs. Mohan Prasad R. (2008) 4 SCC 115 , the Apex Court reiterated that, the object of Section 92 of the Code is to protect the public trust of a charitable and religious nature from being subjected to harassment by suits filed against them. 11.9. In Vidyodaya Trust vs. Mohan Prasad R. (2008) 4 SCC 115 , the Apex Court reiterated that, the object of Section 92 of the Code is to protect the public trust of a charitable and religious nature from being subjected to harassment by suits filed against them. Public trusts for charitable and religious purpose are run for the benefit of the public. No individual should take benefit from them. If the persons in management of the trusts are subjected to multiplicity of legal proceedings, funds which are to be used for charitable or religious purposes would be wasted on litigation. The harassment might dissuade respectable and honest people from becoming trustees of public trusts. Thus, there is need for scrutiny. In the suit against public trusts, if on analysis of the averments contained in the plaint it transpires that the primary object behind the suit was the vindication of individual or personal rights of some persons, an action under the provision does not lie. 11.10. In Sugra Bibi vs. Hazi Kummu Mia, AIR 1969 SC 884 , a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the fact that a suit relates to public trust of a religious or charitable nature and the reliefs claimed fall within clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Code would not by themselves attract the operation of the Section, unless the suit is of a representative character instituted in the interest of the public and not merely for vindication of the individual or personal rights of the plaintiffs. When a person or persons sue not to establish the general rights of the public, of which they are a member or members, but to remedy a particular infringement of their individual right, the suit is not within or need not be brought under Section 92 of the Code. In the said decision, the Apex Court has taken note of the law laid down by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Tirumalai Tirupati Devesthanams Committee vs. U. Krishnayya Shambhaga, AIR 1943 Madras 466, wherein it was held that in deciding whether a suit falls within Section 92 of the Code, the court must go beyond the reliefs and have regard to the capacity in which the plaintiffs are suing and the purpose for which the suit is brought. 11.11. 11.11. In Sugra Bibi, the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the appellant filed suit in the court of Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, United Khasi and Jaintia Hills, Shillong against the respondents for a declaration that the respondents was unfit to continue as Mutawally of the Wakaf Estate and he should be removed from the office of Mutawally and that, Soloman, the son of the plaintiff through Mohammed Shafi, be declared fit and be appointed as Mutawally of Wakaf Estate and till he attains majority a suitable Receiver should be appointed for the said Wakaf Estate. In the said case, the sole question that came up for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the suit attracts the provisions of Section 92 of the Code and whether the suit can be maintained without the sanction of the Advocate General under Section 92 of the Code, as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 92 by Act 104 of 1974. The Apex Court, applying the principle laid down in the decisions referred to in that judgment, opined that the suit brought by the appellant must be treated as a suit brought by her in a representative capacity on behalf of all the beneficiaries of the Wakaf Estate, which was created for a public purpose of charitable or religious nature. The reliefs claimed by the appellant in the suit are not relief for enforcing any private rights but reliefs for removal of defendants as trustee and for appointment of a new trustee in his place. The reliefs asked for by the appellant fall within clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Code and those reliefs claimed by the appellant indicate that the suit was brought by the appellant not in an individual capacity but as representing all the beneficiaries of the Wakaf Estate. Accordingly, the Apex Court held that the suit falls within the purview of the provisions of Section 92 of the Code and in the absence of the consent in writing of the Advocate General, the suit is not maintainable. 12. In St. Peter's Orthodox Syrian Church vs. Fr. Abraham Mathews, 2011 (4) KHC 119 , the suit was one filed by Catholicos (Orthodox) faction of Syrian Christians for a declaration that all religious worships and administration of St. 12. In St. Peter's Orthodox Syrian Church vs. Fr. Abraham Mathews, 2011 (4) KHC 119 , the suit was one filed by Catholicos (Orthodox) faction of Syrian Christians for a declaration that all religious worships and administration of St. Peter's Orthodox Syrian Church, Puthencruz are to be carried on under the authority of Catholicos and in accordance with the Constitution of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and for a perpetual injunction restraining defendants 2 to 11, who are the members of the Jacobite (Patriarch) faction of Syrian Christians from interfering with the religious worships or administration of the plaint schedule Church or from obstructing the 2nd plaintiff Vicar or Catholicos from conducting worships or from carrying on the administration of the Church. The Division Bench noticed that, going by the plaint averments the immediate provocation of the suit was the alleged selection of the 2nd defendant as the Lay Steward (Kaikaran) on 28.12.1975. As per Sections 32, 37 and 39 of the 1934 Constitution, Kaikaran shall be the joint Steward along with the Vicar of all the assets and records of the Parish Church. A Steward is an administrator or a person entrusted with the management of the estate or of the affairs not his own. So, he is a cotrustee. As per Section 32, in all legal proceedings on behalf of the Parish Church, the Lay Steward is entitled to represent the Church. Hence, if the prayer in the plaint is granted, it will have the effect of disabling the 2nd respondent Lay Steward from acting as such. Likewise, defendants 3, 4, 6 and 7, who are the Metropolitans of Malankara Church will be disabled from exercising their authority as Metropolitans on the bald plaint allegations that they have not been validly appointed. The Division Bench held that, in deciding the issue as to whether the suit falls under Section 92 of the Code, the court must go beyond the reliefs and should have regard to the capacity in which the plaintiffs are suing and also examine the purpose for which the suit has been brought, as held by the Apex Court in Paramatmanand Saraswathi vs. Ramji Tripati, AIR 1974 SC 2142. Therefore, if the 1st plaintiff Church is a public trust, then Section 92 of the Code is attracted and the suit filed without leave of the court under Section 92 will not be maintainable. 12.1. Therefore, if the 1st plaintiff Church is a public trust, then Section 92 of the Code is attracted and the suit filed without leave of the court under Section 92 will not be maintainable. 12.1. Relying on the judgment of the Division Bench in St. Peter's Orthodox Syrian Church, a learned Judge of this Court in Fr. John Jacob and Others vs. Fr. Paulose N.I. and Others, 2014 (2) KHC 59 held that the reliefs canvassed in the suit, declaration and injunction [declaration that the 1st plaintiff or other Priests or Vicar appointed by the Diocesan Metropolitan of Kandanadu Diocese (Joseph Mar Pachomeos) functioning under the Constitution of the Malankara Church can only function in the plaint Church; and to prevent the defendants by a decree of permanent injunction from exercising any authority in the plaint Parish Church and over and by its assets as scheduled in the plaint, and also prevent them and members of their group from in any manner preventing the functioning of the 1st plaintiff and others appointed under the provisions of the Constitution of the Malankara Church in and about and regarding the plaint Church and all its assets], on its face value, do not come under Section 92 of the Code. However, the subject matter of the suit, which is a public trust, with reference to the allegation raised in the suit, and the nature of disputes canvassed, is required to be considered, to appreciate whether the reliefs for declaration and injunction would take the suit out of the ambit and sphere of Section 92 of the Code. Where Church is a public trust, declaration sought by one faction against the other asserting its right to have control and administration of the Church, alleging that the Constitution applicable to the Church empowers them to do so, setting forth allegations in the plaint that the defendants had been exercising such administration and control previously over the Church, postulates that the suit is one where the dispute raised for adjudication by the Court is over the control and administration of a public trust by one faction against the other and it squarely falls within the scope of Section 92 of the Code. Of course, all the three ingredients covered by Section 92 of the Code have to be satisfied for instituting a suit thereunder. Of course, all the three ingredients covered by Section 92 of the Code have to be satisfied for instituting a suit thereunder. Suit must relate to a trust created for public purpose of a charitable or religious nature, there is a breach of such trust or that the direction of the court is necessary for administration of the trust, and also the relief claimed is for one or other specifically provided, are the essential conditions to be satisfied for instituting a suit under Section 92 of the Code. 12.2. In Fr. John Jacob this Court noticed that, on the allegations set out in the plaint where the Church, the subject-matter, is shown to be a public trust, essentially, by way of declaration applied for the plaintiffs seek intervention of the court for its control and administration. The relief so claimed is not one covered under clauses (a) to (h) of Section 92 of the Code. That by itself cannot take the suit out of that Section. A suit which clearly come within the scope of the section cannot be considered as one outside its scope because the relief has been styled by plaintiff in a different manner. Plaintiffs have filed the suit not to enforce their private rights, but, as representatives of one of the two factions, seeking permission of the court to do so under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code, to gain control and administration of the Church, a public trust, against the other by a decree of declaration in their favour, and also with decree of injunction restraining defendants from interfering with their administration of Church. Defendants have also been sued as representatives of the rival faction Patriarch (Jacobites) contending that previously recognising the 1934 constitution they continued in control and administration of the Church, but, presently the faction of the plaintiffs (Orthodox) alone have right over the Church. When such be the case, suit is not one enforcing private rights of the plaintiffs, but, one for vindicating the rights of the faction of the plaintiffs over the public trust against the other faction represented by defendants. A Division Bench of this Court in St. When such be the case, suit is not one enforcing private rights of the plaintiffs, but, one for vindicating the rights of the faction of the plaintiffs over the public trust against the other faction represented by defendants. A Division Bench of this Court in St. Peter's Orthodox Syrian Church and also in the two unreported decisions, after exhaustively considering the applicability of Section 92 of the Code over the suits filed by one faction against the other to gain control and administration of Church, seeking declaration and injunction, has categorically held that such suits squarely fall under Section 92 of the Code and where leave had not been obtained for institution of such a suit it is not maintainable. The principles enunciated in the above decisions over the applicability of Section 92 of the Code are equally applicable to the present suit filed by respondents. 12.3. In Fr. John Jacob this Court noticed that the 1st plaintiff, who claims to be the Vicar appointed by the Metropolitan of the Orthodox faction with the other two plaintiffs, one of them stated to be Kaikaran and the other, a member of the Parish, was not vindicating his private right, but, asserting the right of his faction over the Church, a public trust, against the other rival faction (Jacobite) suing defendants in their representative capacity. Declaration and injunction applied for in the suit is nothing but a camouflage, and, the real purport and object of the suit would demonstrate that the reliefs canvassed in respect of the public trust squarely come under Section 92 of the Code. That being so, the suit which was instituted without obtaining permission under Section 92 of the Code was not maintainable, and the decree passed in the suit is liable to be set aside. 13. In John K.P. and Another vs. Mani Varkey and Others, 2014 (4) KHC 36 , relying on the judgment of the Division Bench in St. Peter's Orthodox Syrian Church and that of the learned Single Judge in Fr. John Jacob, a learned Judge of this Court held that a suit filed under Section 92 of the Code is a representative suit and the decision in the suit will bind not only the parties in the suit but also all persons interested in the public trust concerned. John Jacob, a learned Judge of this Court held that a suit filed under Section 92 of the Code is a representative suit and the decision in the suit will bind not only the parties in the suit but also all persons interested in the public trust concerned. In such a case, while dealing with a question of leave under Section 92 of the Code, the person-in-charge of judicial administration while imparting justice, shall be careful in dealing with the matter. Even in a case wherein notice was effected under Order I Rule 8 of the Code, in a matter coming under Section 92 of the Code, it cannot be said that the leave under Section 92 of the Code can be dispensed with when there is sufficient notice under Order I Rule 8 of the Code. In all cases in which notice under Order I Rule 8 of the Code is required, such notice is not a precondition for the institution of the suit. At the same time, a suit contemplated under Section 92 of the Code can only be instituted after obtaining leave under Section 92 of the Code and therefore, it is a precondition for the institution of the suit. 13.1. In John K.P. originally, the plaint in O.S. No. 41 of 1984 was presented before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam. Later, the suit was transferred to the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam being the Special Court for dealing with church cases, where the suit was renumbered as O.S. No. 6 of 1985. Later, the plaint was amended. The reliefs sought for in the amended plaint are as follows; to declare that the Piravom St. Later, the suit was transferred to the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam being the Special Court for dealing with church cases, where the suit was renumbered as O.S. No. 6 of 1985. Later, the plaint was amended. The reliefs sought for in the amended plaint are as follows; to declare that the Piravom St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church, also known as Piravom Valiapally and its assets described in the plaint schedule are to be administered under the Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church originally passed on 26.12.1934 and was amended subsequently, under the Metropolitans, Priests and other religious dignitaries and office bearers appointed and functioning under the said Constitution; to declare that the defendants 54 and 55 are having the right and authority to see that the plaint Church and its assets are managed by a proper Managing Committee elected under the Presidentship of the 55th defendant under the provisions of the 1934 Constitution; to declare that the defendants 31 and 32 or any person claiming under them especially the 53rd defendant cannot exercise any Episcopal or spiritual authority or function or any sort of right over the plaint church and its assets or in any manner interfere in the religious services and administration of the affairs of the plaint church; to restrain defendants 1 to 18 and 26 to 28 and 31, 32 and 53 and their supporters and partisans by a permanent injunction from obstructing in any manner whatever, defendants 54 and 55 and defendants 19 to 22 or other dignitaries or persons appointed under the Malankara Church Constitution from conducting religious services or from exercising their ecclesiastical and other functions in the said church; to declare that all the elections conducted in a manner not provided under the 1934 Constitution, to the Managing Committee of the church are invalid; to declare the rights of the plaintiffs calling upon the interim Court administrators, defendants 1 to 15 or whomsoever may succeed them in their office to hand over their management or the plaint Church and its assets to those whomsoever be appointed under the said Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church in order to administer the same; directing the contesting defendants to pay the plaintiffs the cost of this suit; and granting such other reliefs as may be necessary to preserve the plaint Piravom Valiapally as a constituent Parish church of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Admittedly, no leave under Section 92 of the Code was sought for or any leave was granted expressly by the Subordinate Judge's Court or the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam in the matter. 13.2. In John K.P. this Court noticed that, the fact that the Church in question commonly known as ‘Piravom Valiapally’ and its properties constitute a public religious and charitable trust is not in dispute. There are two factions among the members of the Church, and disputes persist between them. The suit is filed by one of the factions owing allegiance to the Orthodox faction as against the other faction owing allegiance to the Patriarch. After the decision of the Apex Court in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan, any such two factions cannot be there as the venture by the Apex Court was to avoid any factional feud or disputes. Two such factions are still there and one of the factions has come up with the suit against the other faction. When the Division Bench in St. Peter's Orthodox Syrian Church held that leave under Section 92 of the Code being a pre-condition, even the consent of the opposite party, waver or acquiescence of the opposite party either in the pleadings or otherwise, will not cloth the court with the jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. In such circumstances, it has to be considered that the said decision of the Division Bench in St. Peter's Orthodox Syrian Church has clearly overruled the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.R.P. No. 1280 of 2004, as aforesaid. The said order has been passed merely by considering the fact that many orders have been passed by the court below in the suit even without any leave and such orders were upheld by this Court subsequently. All those orders vanished in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in St. Peter's Orthodox Syrian Church. 13.3. In John K.P. this Court held that, it has become trite law through various judicial pronouncements, that in the matter of Malankara Church when a relief has been sought for, for the administration of Parish Churches between two factions, the same has to be treated as a suit within the meaning of Section 92 of the Code. The said question need not again be considered when the same has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in St. The said question need not again be considered when the same has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in St. Peter's Orthodox Syrian Church. When considering the question whether there was want of leave under Section 92 of the Code, the fact that the plaintiffs have later given up some reliefs sought for in the plaint, or subsequently the plaint was amended for taking away some averments and allegations which tend to show that there was mal-administration, breach of trust etc., or the fact that the court has granted only a relief which does not fall under Section 92 of the Code, are of no consequence at all. 13.4. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in John K.P. was under challenge before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3986-3989 of 2018, K.P. John and Another vs. John Puthiyakunnel and Others (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 33156-33159 of 2014). By the order dated 19.04.2018, the Apex Court disposed of those appeals in terms of the judgment in K.S. Varghese. In the said order, the Apex Court held that, as the controversy in question has been finally decided in the case of K.S. Varghese, in which it has been laid down that the 1934 Constitution holds the filed, nothing further survives in the matters for adjudication. The said order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3986-3989 of 2018 reads thus: “Leave granted. As the controversy in question has been finally decided in the case of K.S. Verghese vs. St. Peter's and Paul's Syrian Orth and Others in C.A. No. 3674 of 2015 etc. decided on 3rd July, 2017 [ (2017) 15 SCC 333 ], in which it has been laid down that 1934 Constitution holds the filed, nothing further survives in the matters for adjudication. Consequently, the appeals stand disposed of in terms of the above judgment. Let all the concerned courts and authorities act in terms of the judgment. Let there be no multiplicity of the litigation on this aspect any more in the various courts. The decision rendered in representative suit is binding on all.” 14. In Varkey Abraham and Others vs. St. Consequently, the appeals stand disposed of in terms of the above judgment. Let all the concerned courts and authorities act in terms of the judgment. Let there be no multiplicity of the litigation on this aspect any more in the various courts. The decision rendered in representative suit is binding on all.” 14. In Varkey Abraham and Others vs. St. Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church, Nechur and Others, 2009 (4) KHC 473 , a learned Judge of this Court held that merely because the suit contains a declaratory relief it will not take the suit out of Section 92 of the Code. The law does not insist that any two or more persons interested in the public trust concerned should invariably institute a suit. It is upto them to decide whether a suit is to be filed or not. But, if a suit is filed and going by the nature of the suit it falls within the parameters of Section 92 of the Code, then such a suit will be maintainable only if the leave of the appropriate Court prior to its institution has been obtained. It is not every court, which is competent to grant leave to institute the suit. It is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or the empowered court, which can grant the leave and thereafter entertain the suit. 14.1. In Varkey Abraham, the suit originally instituted before the Munsiffs' Court, Muvattupuzha as O.S. No. 83 of 1976 by the deceased 1st plaintiff and the appellants before this Court, was for a decree declaring that the 1st defendant St. 14.1. In Varkey Abraham, the suit originally instituted before the Munsiffs' Court, Muvattupuzha as O.S. No. 83 of 1976 by the deceased 1st plaintiff and the appellants before this Court, was for a decree declaring that the 1st defendant St. Thomas orthodox Syrian Church, Nechur is a Parish Church included in the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and that it has to be administered in accordance with the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Constitution by Moran Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathews-I, the present Malankara Metropolitan and Catholicos and his successors; a decree declaring that the 5th plaintiff (T.P. Elias Kathanar) is the Vicar of the 1st defendant Church and the 2nd defendant (P.M. Kuriakose Kathanar) has no right to function as the Vicar or perform the duties of the Vicar in the said Church and pass a decree of mandatory injunction restraining the 2nd defendant who is keeping custody of the keys, diary, Parish Register, Marriage Register, Baptism Register, etc., in his capacity as the Vicar, to hand over the same to the 5th plaintiff; a decree of prohibitory injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from convening a meeting of the Parishioners of the 1st defendant Church on 15.02.1976 or any other day and restraining defendants 3 to 5 from convening a meeting of the Parishioners without preparing a voters list, calling for objections to the same and publishing the final list; a decree of prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 2 to 5 from spending any amount belonging to the Church for any purpose other than the day to day affairs of the Church and restraining them from permitting defendants 6 and 7 to enter the Church or paying defendants 6 and 7 any money from out of the Church fund; and to pass a decree of prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 6 and 7 from entering the 1st defendant Church and meddling with the administration of the Church. 14.2. After considering the rival contentions, this Court held that the question as to whether it is the 1934 Constitution, which governs the Church in question, which is admittedly a Church administrated under the Malankara Association can fall for consideration only in a properly instituted suit. The suit which was instituted without leave under Section 92 was not maintainable. 14.2. After considering the rival contentions, this Court held that the question as to whether it is the 1934 Constitution, which governs the Church in question, which is admittedly a Church administrated under the Malankara Association can fall for consideration only in a properly instituted suit. The suit which was instituted without leave under Section 92 was not maintainable. Even if leave was sought under Section 92 of the Code, that would be of no avail, since the suit was filed before the Munsiffs' Court, which was totally incompetent to entertain a suit under Section 92 of the Code. Merely because the suit was subsequently transferred to designated Church Court, which was presided over by an Additional District Judge, the suit will not become one instituted before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, even assuming that leave under Section 92 of the Code was obtained from that Court in advance. 14.3. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in Varkey Abraham was under challenge before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2036 of 2010, Varkey John, Kariath and Others vs. St. Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church and Others. By the order dated 05.07.2017, the Apex Court disposed of that appeal in terms of the judgment in K.S. Varghese. In the said order, the Apex Court held that the judgment passed in K.S. Varghese vs. St. Peter's and Paul's Syrian Orth and Others (C.A. No. 3674 of 2015) on 03.07.2017, which is in representative suit is applicable to the parties in present case. The said order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2036 of 2010 reads thus: “In view of the judgment passed in K.S. Varghese vs. St. Peter's and Paul's Syrian Orth (C.A. No. 3674 of 2015) on 03.07.2017 by this Court, which is in representative suit it is applicable to the parties in present case. The instant appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above mentioned judgment.” 15. In Baby C.J. and Others vs. Fr. Jiju Varghese and Others, 2019 (2) KHC 692 arising out of the order dated 10.07.2018 in F.A.O. No. 96 of 2018 and connected cases, the Apex Court held that, as the controversy in question has been finally decided on 03.07.2017, in the case of K.S. Varghese (2017) 15 SCC 333 , which holds the field, nothing further survives in the matters for adjudication. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of in view of the above judgment and the Apex Court directed all the concerned courts and authorities to act in terms of that judgment. In the said decision, the Apex Court made it clear that, let there be no multiplicity of the litigation on this aspect any more in various courts and that, the decision rendered in representative suit is binding on all. 16. In Fr. Issac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa vs. St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church, (2019) 10 SCC 606 , after quoting Para-228 of the decision in K.S. Varghese (2017) 15 SCC 333 , the Apex Court reiterated that, there can be no further litigation as the decision in representative suit is binding and that, it is the constitutional duty of all concerned to obey the judgment and order of the Apex Court. In the said decision, it is made clear that, by the decision in K.S. Varghese the Apex Court intended peace to come in Church. The Apex Court directed the courts to decide all pending matters following the decision in K.S. Varghese, which has been affirmed thereafter umpteen number of times, and restrained all the civil courts and this Court not to pass any order in violation of the mandate of the decision in K.S. Varghese. 17. In Varkey U. and Others vs. Issac Nedivelil Puthenpura and Others, 2019 (3) KHC 689 a Division Bench of this Court observed that the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan, K.S. Varghese and Mathews Mar Koorilos has categorically stated as to what are the rights and obligations of the disputants in Malankara Church cases and no court in this country can take a different view on the subject. Para-14 of the said decision reads thus: “14. We are of the clear view that no court in this country can take a different view on the subject reckoning the binding pronouncements by the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan and Others vs. Moran Mar Marthoma and Another, (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 286, K.S. Varghese vs. St. Peter's and Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church, (2017) 15 SCC 333 and Mathews Mar Koorilos vs. Pappy, (2018) 9 SCC 672 . Now it is very clear that the Supreme Court has categorically stated as to what are the rights and obligations of the disputants in Malankara Church cases and no court in this country can take a different view on the subject. Now it is very clear that the Supreme Court has categorically stated as to what are the rights and obligations of the disputants in Malankara Church cases and no court in this country can take a different view on the subject. It has been clarified by the Supreme Court by an order passed on 19.04.2018 in S.L.P. Nos. 33156-33159/2014 as follows: “Leave granted. As the controversy in question has been finally decided in the case of K.S. Varghese vs. St. Peter's and St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church in C.A No. 3674 of 2015 etc. decided on 3rd July, 2017 [ (2017) 15 SCC 333 ] in which it has been laid down that 1934 Constitution holds the field, nothing further survives in the matters for adjudication. Consequently, the appeals stand disposed of in terms of the above judgment. Let all the concerned courts and authorities act in terms of the judgment. Let there be no multiplicity of the litigation on this aspect any more in the various courts. The decision rendered in representative suit is binding on all.” 18. In St. Peter's Orthodox Syrian Church the Division Bench of this Court held that, in deciding the issue as to whether the suit falls under Section 92 of the Code, the Court must go beyond the reliefs and should have regard to the capacity in which the plaintiffs are suing and also examine the purpose for which the suit has been brought, as held by the Apex Court in Paramatmanand Saraswathi. Therefore, if the 1st plaintiff Church is a public trust, then Section 92 of the Code is attracted and the suit filed without leave of the court under Section 92 will not be maintainable. In Fr. John Jacob, relying on the judgment in St. Therefore, if the 1st plaintiff Church is a public trust, then Section 92 of the Code is attracted and the suit filed without leave of the court under Section 92 will not be maintainable. In Fr. John Jacob, relying on the judgment in St. Peter's Orthodox Syrian Church, a learned Judge of this Court held that, where Church is a public trust, declaration sought by one faction against the other asserting its right to have control and administration of the Church, alleging that the Constitution applicable to the Church empowers them to do so, setting forth allegations in the plaint that the defendants had been exercising such administration and control previously over the Church, postulates that the suit is one where the dispute raised for adjudication by the Court is over the control and administration of a public trust by one faction against the other and it squarely falls within the scope of Section 92 of the Code. In John K.P., relying on the judgments in St. Peter's Orthodox Syrian Church and Fr.John Jacob a learned Judge of this Court held that a suit contemplated under Section 92 of the Code can only be instituted after obtaining leave under Section 92 of the Code and therefore, it is a precondition for the institution of the suit. It has become trite law through various judicial pronouncements, that in the matter of Malankara Church when a relief has been sought for, for the administration of Parish Churches between two factions, the same has to be treated as a suit within the meaning of Section 92 of the Code. By the order dated 19.04.2018, the Apex Court disposed of Civil Appeal Nos. 3986-89 of 2018 filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in John K.P. in terms of the judgment in K.S. Varghese, holding that, as the controversy in question has been finally decided in the case of K.S. Varghese, in which it has been laid down that the 1934 Constitution holds the filed, nothing further survives in the matters for adjudication. 19. In Varkey Abraham, a learned Judge of this Court held that, merely because the suit contains a declaratory relief it will not take the suit out of Section 92 of the Code. 19. In Varkey Abraham, a learned Judge of this Court held that, merely because the suit contains a declaratory relief it will not take the suit out of Section 92 of the Code. If a suit is filed and going by the nature of the suit it falls within the parameters of Section 92 of the Code, then such a suit will be maintainable only if the leave of the appropriate court prior to its institution has been obtained. It is not every court, which is competent to grant leave to institute the suit. It is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or the empowered Court, which can grant the leave and thereafter entertain the suit. This Court held that, the question as to whether it is the 1934 Constitution, which governs the Church in question, which is admittedly a Church administrated under the Malankara Association, can fall for consideration only in a properly instituted suit. The suit which was instituted without leave under Section 92 was not maintainable. Even if leave was sought under Section 92 of the Code, that would be of no avail, since the suit was filed before the Munsiffs' Court, which was totally incompetent to entertain a suit under Section 92 of the Code. Merely because the suit was subsequently transferred to designated Church Court, which was presided over by an Additional District Judge, the suit will not become one instituted before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, even assuming that leave under Section 92 of the Code was obtained from that court in advance. By the order dated 05.07.2017, the Apex Court disposed of Civil Appeal No. 2036 of 2010 filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Varkey Abraham, in terms of the judgment in K.S. Varghese, holding that the judgment in K.S. Varghese, which is in representative suit is applicable to the parties in present case. 20. In Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan, K.S. Varghese and Mathews Mar Korilos, the Apex Court has laid down in categorical terms, what are the rights and obligations of the rival factions, i.e. Patriarch faction and the Catholicos faction, in Malankara Church and no court in the country can take a different view on this subject. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said decisions and also the orders in Civil Appeal Nos. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said decisions and also the orders in Civil Appeal Nos. 3986-89 of 2018, arising out of the judgment of this Court in John K.P. and Civil Appeal No. 2036 of 2010, arising out of the judgment of this Court in Varkey Abraham, the finding of the first appellate court/trial court in the impugned judgments that the respective suits are not maintainable for want of leave under Section 92 of the Code cannot be sustained. 21. In the order in Civil Appeal Nos. 3986-3989 of 2018 the Apex Court has made it clear that the decision rendered in K.S. Varghese in representative suit is binding on all, and all the concerned courts and authorities shall act in terms of that judgment, so that there is no multiplicity of the litigation on this aspect any more in various courts. In Fr. Issac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa the Apex Court reiterated that, there can be no further litigation as the decision in representative suit is binding and that, it is the constitutional duty of all concerned to obey the judgment and order of the Apex Court. In the said decision, it is made clear that, by the decision in K.S. Varghese the Apex Court intended peace to come in Church. The Apex Court directed the courts to decide all pending matters following the decision in K.S. Varghese, which has been affirmed thereafter umpteen number of times, and restrained all the civil courts and this Court not to pass any order in violation of the mandate of the decision in K.S. Varghese. 22. In the result, these appeals are allowed as follows: (i) RSA No. 197 of 2019 is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the Additional District Court, Kottayam in A.S. No. 174 of 2012 and that of the Munsiff's Court, Ettumanoor in O.S. No. 130 of 2008 dismissing the suit as not maintainable for want of leave under Section 92 of the Code and O.S. No. 130 of 2008 is remanded to the Munsiff's Court, Ettumanoor for disposal on merits, in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese. (ii) RFA No. 174 of 2010 is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam in O.S. No. 31 of 2002 dismissing the suit as not maintainable for want of leave under Section 92 of the Code and O.S. No. 31 of 2002 is remanded to the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam for disposal on merits, in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese. (iii) RFA No. 310 of 2010 is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam in O.S. No. 38 of 1999 dismissing the suit as not maintainable for want of leave under Section 92 of the Code and O.S. No. 38 of 1999 is remanded to the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam for disposal on merits, in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese. (iv) Both sides shall appear before the respective trial courts on 16.03.2020. (v) The trial court shall finally dispose of the original suits, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the aforesaid date. (vi) Application, if any, filed by the plaintiffs seeking interim reliefs shall be considered by the trail court in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese. (vii) Registry shall return LCR by messenger, so as to reach the trial court before the posting date. No order as to costs.