Judgment :- (Common Prayer: These Original Side Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules r/w Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the common order and decree dated 10.11.2020 passed in O.A.No.151 of 2020 & A.No.1350 of 2020 in C.S.No.56 of 2020 by this Hon’ble High Court.) Common Judgment R.N. Manjula, J. 1. These Original Side Appeals have been filed against the common order passed in O.A.No.151 of 2020 & A.No.1350 of 2020 in C.S.No.56 of 2020 on 10.11.2020. 2. The Appellants are the Defendants and the Respondent is the Plaintiff in the suit. 3. The plaintiff is a Global Organization who has its International Head Quarters in Missouri, USA and it is a registered society. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff society for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property and also for the relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit property. Subsequently, the plaintiff has also filed a petition for ad interim injunction against the defendants for restraining them from interfering or disturbing the worship and other activities of plaintiff’s Church and the injunction was also granted. The first Appellant/first Defendant has filed an application in A.No.1350 of 2020 for vacating the same. By a common order dated 10.11.2020, the learned Single Judge allowed the injunction petition and dismissed the Application to vacate the injunction by making the following observations:- 10. It is also seen that in the year 2013, a complaint was lodged by the plaintiff society dated 28.03.2013 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Triplicane Range, informing the Police about the 1st defendant forcibly throwing out the Pastor from the property belonging to the society. It is therefore seen that the 1st defendant have been intermittently interfering in the functioning of the Church belonging to the plaintiff society. 11. The Mission at United States had appointed Mr.Issac Bennet Joshua Prince Daniel as the Pastor of the Church belonging to the plaintiff society vide order dated 19.02.2020. The complaint has been given by the Pastor alleging interference in the conduct of the Church. The suit relates to the property in which the Church is situate and the relief is one for declaration and recovery of possession. The complaint has been given by the Pastor alleging interference in the conduct of the Church. The suit relates to the property in which the Church is situate and the relief is one for declaration and recovery of possession. It is pending this suit that the defendants have attempted to obstruct the functioning of the Church and the same has been restored after the Police had been called in. Therefore, it cannot be said that the relief claimed in the interlocutory application is outside the scope of the main relief. 12. The plaintiff society has been constrained to move this application since the defendants are at regular intervals obstructing the functioning of the Church. The complaint lodged by the daughter of the 1st defendant to the Police on 22.02.2020 would also give indication that the defendants are stacking a claim for conducting mass and other religious gatherings in the Church and it is for this reason that the defendants have frequently disturbed the plaintiff. The Church is being run by the Pastor who is a different person and not the Mission President, whose authority the defendants question. It is the case of the defendants that he had been removed in the year 2010 itself. However, the Pastor in question is appointed by the Mission headquarters in United States on 19.02.2020. This fact has not been denied any where by the defendants. The Police complaint has also been given only by this Pastor. 13. Considering the fact that there has been an interference in offering worship at the Church and also taking into account the stand taken by the 1st defendant’s daughter in her police complaint which is contrary to the contention of the 1st defendant that he does not intend to interfere with the worship at the Church it would be in the interest of Justice that the defendants are injuncted from in any manner interfering with plaintiff society’s right to hold prayers and other religious activities in the schedule Church till the disposal of the above suit.” 4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the Appellants and the respondent heard at length. 5. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the order of injunction cannot be granted in a suit filed for recovery of possession and that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit itself. The arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the Appellants and the respondent heard at length. 5. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the order of injunction cannot be granted in a suit filed for recovery of possession and that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit itself. The facts that a Church is situated in the suit property and prayers and other religious services are conducted, are admitted by both parties. The dispute arose because of the power wrangle between the parties to take up the management and administration of the properties of the society and the activities of the Church. 6. One Prince Daniel has represented the plaintiff’s society in his capacity as its President. The Appellants do not accept the authority of Prince Daniel by contending that he was not properly elected. However, the letters of notice of his appointment issued by the International Head Quarters of theMission at U.S.A from the year 2012, would show that he has been functioning as the President of the Church with the approval of the Head Quarters. And some of the minutes of the meetings of the Executive Committee seem to be supporting the contention of the respondent/plaintiff. 7. The respondent/plaintiff has alleged that the first Appellant was the former President and during his tenure, he mismanaged the assets and affairs of the society and enriched himself and that he also inducted his wife, son-in-law and his daughter into the helms of the Church. Some of the minutes of the meetings dated 17.11.2012, 08.09.2012, 14.09.2014, 06.09.2015, 10.09.2017, 09.09.2018, 29.09.2019, 26.12.2020 etc., have been produced to show that there was power sharing between the first Appellant and his wife in controlling the affairs of the Church. 8. Some of the minutes of those meetings also show how deeply nepotism was favoured during his tenure. Even after receiving the letters from the International Head Quarters that his actions are not approved, the meetings presided by the first Appellant and his wife were continuing. In fact, a resolution to allow a monthly pension of Rs.32,000/- to the first Appellant itself has been passed on 06.09.2015. It is also seen from those meetings that files relating to the second defendant business are housed in a room and a portion of the suit property was allowed for running the office of the second defendant. In fact, a resolution to allow a monthly pension of Rs.32,000/- to the first Appellant itself has been passed on 06.09.2015. It is also seen from those meetings that files relating to the second defendant business are housed in a room and a portion of the suit property was allowed for running the office of the second defendant. They also show that the son-in-law and the daughter of the first Appellant were inducted and allowed to gain prominence. The first Appellant continues to be in possession of the house in the suit property by residing there, even after his tenure was over and even after he was placed under the ‘ministerial silence’through the letter of the Head Quarters dated 29.03.2011. These materials on record are sufficient enough to make out a prima facie case. 9. Barring the rival contentions of the parties to the suit regarding the administration of the properties of the society and its affairs, one of the primary functions of the society is the religious activities that are carried out in the Church. The conduction of the prayers and other ceremonies of the Church cannot be allowed to remain uncertain until the issues involved in this suit are tried and decided. The power struggle between two parties should not be a hindrance to the worshippers who come to the Church to receive the services conducted there, on a regular basis. Even though this suit is filed for declaration and recovery of possession, events of disturbance to the peaceful conduction of the prayers in the Church have erupted during its pendency. The pendency of this suit should neither stall nor confuse the affairs of the Church, especially when materials available to show that the first Appellant had caused interference and disturbance to the functions of the Church. 10. The first Appellant has alleged that Prince Daniel has forcefully barged into the Church and obtained its possession with the aid of police. It is claimed by the respondent/plaintiff that the police actually helped to protect the lawful possession of the plaintiff and when the first Appellant attempted to disrupt it. Though, these are the matters to be proved during the trial, the facts remain that on the date when the suit was filed, it was the plaintiff who was managing the affairs of the Church and a new pastor for the Church has also been appointed on 19.02.2020. Though, these are the matters to be proved during the trial, the facts remain that on the date when the suit was filed, it was the plaintiff who was managing the affairs of the Church and a new pastor for the Church has also been appointed on 19.02.2020. Further, the first Appellant himself has conceded that he does not have any personal rights in the suit property and it belongs to the Church only. 11. Though the first Appellant questions the election of Prince Daniel as the President, the Church activities are being managed and carried out under his control. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the intention of the plaintiff is not to disturb the first Appellant/first Defendant who is residing in the suit property and his primary concern is to ensure that the prayers and services rendered in the Church are not affected during the pendency of this suit. 12. No prejudice is going to be caused to the Appellants if the Church activities are allowed to be conducted in a peaceful manner by granting an order of injunction. On the other hand, if injunction is not granted, threats of violence and uncertainty would erupt every now and then and that will disrupt the harmony and disturb the worshippers. And such kind of damages cannot be redressed any time later. The learned Single Judge has correctly evaluated the elements of balance of convenience and irreparable loss before suiting the respondent/plaintiff for the relief. 13. As already pointed out, there are also prima facie materials available to support the allegation of the respondent/plaintiff that, during the tenure of the first Appellant/first Defendant, he had allowed his kith and kin to play dominance. In order to get a relief of injunction, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to make out a prima facie case and prove that there is balance of convenience in his favour and denying the relief would cause irreparable loss. The respondent/plaintiff had successfully proved these elements before the Court. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent has given an assurance during the course of his arguments that the possession of the first Appellant in the house situated in the suit property will not be disturbed until the disposal of the suit, even though the affairs of the Church is carried out to his exclusion. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent has given an assurance during the course of his arguments that the possession of the first Appellant in the house situated in the suit property will not be disturbed until the disposal of the suit, even though the affairs of the Church is carried out to his exclusion. It is also admitted that the Church and the house in the suit property are situated as distinct and separate portions. So the order of interim injunction can only help to maintain peace and harmony. The learned Single Judge has rightly thought it fit to grant an order of interim injunction for the peaceful worship and prayers carried out in the Church, until the larger issues are decided through an exhaustive trial. And for the same reason, the learned Single Judge has chosen to disallow the Application filed by the first Appellant to vacate the injunction. Hence, we find no reason for interference. In the result, these Original Side Appeals are dismissed and the common order passed in O.A.No.151 of 2020 & A.No.1350 of 2020 in C.S.No.56 of 2020 is confirmed. Before concluding, we deem it fit to impress the parties that they should exercise due restraint and shall not indulge in anyway to alienate or encumber the suit properties till the disposal of the suit, considering the public interest involved. No costs. Connected civil miscellaneous petitions in C.M.P.Nos.290 & 292 of 2021 are closed.