Kerala High Court
Jibu Mathew vs St.Michaels Church on 30 June, 2025
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1947
RSA NO. 925 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2013 IN AS
NO.120 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2009 IN
OS NO.252 OF 2004 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/3RD DEFENDANT:
JIBU MATHEW
S/O MATHEW, VADAYIL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY,
ALAPPUZHA
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SMT.ALEXY AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS:
1 ST.MICHAELS CHURCH
THATHAMPALLY, A ROMAN CATHOLIC PARISH CHURCH
UNDER THE ARCHDIOCESE OF THE CHANGANASSERY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR, ST. MICHAELS CHURCH,
THATHAMPALLY ALAPPUZHA - 688013
2 CATHOLIC YOUNGMEN'S ASSOCIATION (CYMA)
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
2
ST.MICHAELS CHURCH,THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA PIN -
688013, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LALICHAN
JOSEPH, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH PUTHENPURACKAL,
THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA - 688013
3 T.C ANTONY
AGED 59 YEARS
VICE PRESIDENT OF CYMA, THYPARAMBIL,
THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA - 688013.
4 JOSEPH MATHEW
AGED 54 YEARS
MALAYIL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA 688013
5 DOTTY THOMAS
AGED 61 YEARS
KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, AVALOOKUNNU P.O, ALAPPUZHA
688013
6 JAMES ANTONY
AGED 51 YEARS
UNNECHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA
688013.
7 MATHEW THOMAS
AGED 67 YEARS
VALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA
688013
8 THOMAS JOSEPH (DIED)
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH, PUTHENPARAMBIL, NEAR ST. MICHAELS
SCHOOL, THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA 688013.
*IT IS RECORDED AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT
THAT, IMPLEADMENT OF LEGAL HEIRS OF R8 IS NOT
NECESSARY, AS PER ORDER DATED 13.3.2014.
9 E. MATHEW JOSEH
AGED 74 YEARS
S/O E.M JOSEPH, ITHIPARAMBIL THATHAMAPALLY,
ALAPPUZHA 688013
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
3
10 SYRIL KOSHY
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O KOSHY K. RAJAPPAN, MALILYL HOUSE,
THATHAMPALLY 688013, ALAPPUZHA
11 A.T MICHAEL
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, ANCHERIL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY P.O,
ALAPPUZHA 688013
12 GEORGE KUTTY C.P
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O C.P PAILY, CHOVUMPURAM, THATHAMPALLY,
ALAPPUZHA - 688013
13 V.J. ANTONY
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O V.C. JOSEPH, VALLAPPURACKAL, THATHAMPALLY
WARD, ALAPPUZHA - 688013.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.) FOR R1
SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD FOR R1
SRI.ABEL ANTONY FOR R12
SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY FOR R1
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18.06.2025, ALONG WITH RSA.941/2013 & 1064/2013, THE COURT
ON 30.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1947
RSA NO. 941 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2013 IN AS
NO.119 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2009 IN
OS NO.802 OF 2003 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 CATHOLIC YOUNG MEN'S ASSOCIATION
(CYMA), THATHAMPILLY,ALAPPUZHA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT,
K.V.THOMAS,AGED 55 YEARS
PODIKANNIKKAL(H)THATHAPILLY,
ALAPPUZHA.
2 CATHOLIC YOUNG MEN'S ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS TREASURER,MATHEW JOSEPH, AGED
52 YEARS, VILANJOOR HOUSE, THATHAMPILLY,
ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SMT.ALEXY AUGUSTINE
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
5
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
ST. MICHAELS CHURCH
THATHAMPILLY,ALAPPUZHA,REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING TRUSTEE, PIN-688013.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD
SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18.06.2025, ALONG WITH RSA.925/2013 AND 1064/2013, THE
COURT ON 30.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1947
RSA NO. 1064 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2013 IN AS
NO.121 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2009 IN
OS NO.252 OF 2004 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/ADDL.2ND APPELLANT/ADDL.9TH DEFENDANT:
E.MATHEW JOSEPH
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT ITHIPARAMBIL,
THATHAMPALLY,ALAPPUZHA - 13.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 TO 8 & 10 TO 13/ DEFENDANTS 1
TO 8, 10 TO 13:
1 ST.MICHAELS CHURCH
THATHAMPALLY, A ROMAN CATHOLIC PARISH CHURCH
UNDER THE ARCHDIOCESE OF CHANGANASSERY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR, ST.MICHAELS CHURCH,
THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA,PIN 688 013.
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
7
2 CATHOLIC YOUNG MEN'S ASSOCIATION (CYMA)
AGED 45 YEARS
ST.MICHAELS CHURCH, THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LALICHAN JOSEPH,
S/O.JOSEPH, PUTHENPURACKAL, THATHAMPALLY,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 013
3 T.C.ANTONY, AGED 59 YEARS,
VICE PRESIDENT OF CYMA,
THYPARAMBIL
THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA - 688 013.
4 JOSEPH MATHEW, AGED 54 YEARS, MALAYIL HOUSE,
THATHAMPALLY
ALAPPUZHA - 688 013.
5 DOTTY THOMAS, AGED 60 YEARS,
KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE,
AVALOOKUNNU P.O.
ALAPPUZHA PIN 688 013.
6 JAMES ANTONY
AGED 51 YEARS
UNNECHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY,
ALAPPUZHA,PIN 688 013.
7 MATHEW THOMAS
AGED 67 YEARS
VALAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 013.
8 JIBU MATHEW
AGED 49 YEARS
VADAYIL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 013.
9 THOMAS JOSEPH
PUTHENPARAMBIL, NEAR ST.MICHAELS SCHOOL,
THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA-13 (DIED).
10 SYRIL KOSHY, S/O.KOSHY K.RAJAPPAN
AGED 50 YEARS
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
8
MALIYIL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA,PIN
688 013.
11 A.T.MICHAEL, AGED 64 YEARS,
S/O.THOMAS, ANCHERI HOUSE
THATHAMPALLY P.O., PIN 688 013.
12 GEORGEKUTTY C.P., AGED ABOUNT 51 YEARS,
S/O.C.P.PAILY, CHOVUMPURAM THATHAMPALLY
ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 013.
13 V.J.ANTONY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O.V.C.JOSEPH,
VALLAPPURACKAL THATHAMPALLY
ALAPPUZHA PIN 688 013.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD FOR R1
SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY FOR R1
SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.)FOR R1
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18.06.2025, ALONG WITH RSA.925/2013 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 30.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
9
EASWARAN S., J.
------------------------------------
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
These three appeals arise out of the concurrent findings of the
Additional Munsiff’s Court, Alappuzha, in judgment and decree dated
23.9.2009 in OS Nos.252/2004 and 802/2003 and that of the
Additional District Court, Alappuzha, in judgment and decree dated
28.2.2013 in AS Nos.119/2009, 120/2009 and 121/2009.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals are
as follows:
St.Michaels Church is a Roman Catholic Church under the Arch
Diocese of Changanacherry. Under the St.Michaels Church, an
unregistered association of young catholic men was formed and was
named as Catholic Young Men’s Association (CYMA). The
Association was formed in the year 1922 from among the members of
the parishioners. While so, an application was given for allotment of
the land belonging to St.Michaels Church, in order to enable the
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
10Catholic Young Men’s Association to establish a rest house as well as
a library. This was done presumably expecting a grant from the then
Government. Accordingly, an application was given to the Church by
the Catholic Young Men’s Association seeking allotment of the land.
The said application was processed by the general body (hereinafter
referred to as ‘pothuyogam’, for short) of the Church in its meeting
held on 28.11.1926 and decided to accept the application on certain
conditions. One of the conditions is that, the land, if required in
future for the Church, should be returned by the Catholic Young
Men’s Association, subject to the entitlement to receive the cost of the
construction. Under the hierarchy of the Church, the decision of the
pothuyogam has to be approved by the Bishop. Hence, after the
decision, the Church forwarded the application along with the
decision for the approval of the Bishop. It is stated that the Bishop
wanted to peruse the byelaw of the Association and hence, granted
permission temporarily until the approval is given to the byelaw.
Later, in the year 1946, the Catholic Young Men’s Association made a
further request for allotment of additional land for the purpose of
making a playground. The said request was also accepted subject to
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
11certain conditions. The matter continued like this for nearly six
decades. However, it appears that various inter se disputes arose
between the members of the Catholic Young Men’s Association
regarding the management of the Association. However, for the
purpose of consideration of these appeals, it may not be necessary to
delve into those facts. Be that as it may, it appears that the
pothuyogam of the Church passed a resolution on 31.8.2003 seeking
to withdraw the permission granted to the Catholic Young Men’s
Association and decided to revoke the permission. The said
resolution was forwarded to the Bishop, who issued Kalpana
No.922/2003 on 31.10.2003, which led to the Catholic Young Men’s
Association filing OS No.802/2003 seeking for a prohibitory
injunction against the Church from forcefully evicting them from the
plaint schedule property. Finding that the Catholic Young Men’s
Association had no intention to vacate the premises, St.Michaels
Church filed OS No.252/2004 seeking for a mandatory injunction
directing the Catholic Young Men’s Association to furnish the
accounts regarding the expenditure incurred by them for the
construction of the building, so that they can pay the aforesaid
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
12amount and reclaim the property. Both the suits were tried together.
According to the plaintiff in OS No.252/2004- St.Michaels Church –
the permission granted to the Catholic Young Men’s Association is
only a revocable licence and that their request had been accepted on
the basis of the decision of the pothuyogam which imposed certain
conditions and that the permission granted by the Bishop was also
subject to the aforesaid condition.
3. On the other hand, the defendants/plaintiffs in OS
No.802/2003 (Catholic Young Men’s Association) contended that the
licence granted in their favour is irrevocable and that they have
constructed the building by expending a considerable amount and
therefore, the licence cannot be revoked. It was further contended
that the Bishop as well as the Vicar of the Church are members of the
Catholic Young Men’s Association and therefore, they are estopped
from revoking the licence. It was further contended that the Bishop
had approved the byelaw and therefore, the Catholic Young Men’s
Association was permitted to hold the property as long as it exists.
The decision of the Bishop accepting the request of the Catholic Young
Men’s Association was never communicated to them and therefore,
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
13
they were not put to notice regarding any condition imposed by the
Bishop while accepting the request, and therefore, the decision of the
pothuyogam held on 28.11.1926 has no sanctity in the eyes of the law.
The Addl. Munsiff’s Court, Alappuzha took up OS No.252/2004 as the
lead case. On behalf of the plaintiff Church, Exts.A1 to A24 (a) were
marked. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B16 were marked.
Exts.C1 & C1(a) are the report of the advocate commissioner and
mahazar. Exts.X1 to X4(a) were marked as third party exhibits. On
behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and on behalf of
the defendants, DW1 to DW3 were examined. The trial court, after
considering the pleadings and documentary evidence framed the
following issues:
“1. Is the suit not maintainable as the plaintiff Church not
properly represented?
2. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
3. Is the first defendant under any legal obligation to vacate
the scheduled building whenever the plaintiff requires by
virtue of any agreement?
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
14
4. Is the Kalpana No.922/2003 dated 31.10.2003 by the
Arch Bishop of Changanassery Diocese binding on the
first defendant?
5. Is the plaintiff entitled for a mandatory injunction
directing the first defendant to produce the book of
accounts relating to the cost of the scheduled building?
6. Is the plaintiff entitled for mandatory injunction directing
the plaintiff to remove the building and all structures in
plaint schedule property and in case of failure to allow the
plaintiff to demolish the same at the cost of first defendant?
7. Is the plaintiff entitled for the prohibitory injunction as
prayed for?
8. Relief and cost?”
4. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the
trial court came to the conclusion that the licence granted in favour of
the defendants in OS No.252/2004 is only a revocable licence and
that once the suit, OS No.802/2003, was instituted, it constitutes as
a notice for revocation of the licence and thus proceeded to decree OS
No.252/2004 and dismissed OS No.802/2003. The defendants in OS
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
15
No.252/2004 and the plaintiffs in OS No.802/2003 carried the
challenge before the Addl.District Court in AS Nos.120/2009,
121/2009 and 119/2009. All the three appeals were taken up together
by the Addl. District Court, Alappuzha and by judgment dated
28.2.2013, dismissed all the appeals confirming the judgment and
decree of the Addl. Munsiff’s Court in OS Nos.252/2004 & 802/2003.
Hence, the present second appeals.
5. Heard Sri.George Cherian, the learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri.George A.Cherian and Smt.Latha Susan Cherian,
appearing on behalf of the appellants in RSA Nos.925/2013 &
941/2013 and Sri.Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants in RSA No.1064/2013, and Sri.K.Jayakumar, the learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri.John Joseph Vettikkad appearing for
the 1st respondent/plaintiff Church.
6. Sri.George Cherian, the learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants in RSA No.925/2013 & 941/2013 raised
the following submissions:-
(a) The suit filed by St.Michaels Church as OS No.252/2004 is not
maintainable inasmuch as it is a collusive suit. The Catholic Young
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
16Men’s Association was wrongly stated in the cause title of the suit as
Catholic Young Men’s Association, St.Michaels Church,
Thathampally.
(b) The actual name of the Association would be Catholic Young
Men’s Association (CYMA), Thathampally. Instead of describing
correctly, it was stated as Catholic Young Men’s Association,
St.Michaels Church, Thathampally.
(c) Apart from the collusive nature of the suit, it is pointed out that
both the trial court as well as the first appellate court miserably failed
to consider the fact that permission granted to them is in the form of
an irrevocable licence. The permission of the Bishop was never
communicated to the Association. Therefore, till this date, nobody
knows as to whether the Bishop had accepted the request of the
Association with any condition or not. Though the Association,
defendants in the suit, filed an application requiring the plaintiff to
produce the said Kalpana, it was reported that the same is not
available.
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
17
(d) The plaintiff Church was represented by the Vicar. Going by the
constitution of the Church, the Vicar is not the proper person to
represent the Church.
(e) After the written statement was preferred by the Catholic Young
Men’s Association, the plaintiff wanted to correct the cause title of the
suit and preferred an application for amendment, which was
dismissed. The dismissal of the application for amendment was
carried forward before this Court in a writ petition and the same also
ended in dismissal. Therefore, since the 1st defendant was improperly
arrayed as a party, the decree which is obtained by the plaintiff is not
binding on the Association.
(f) Admittedly, there is no written agreement between the parties.
However, the facts and evidence in the present case would lead to an
irresistible conclusion that what is granted to the Catholic Young
Men’s Association is an irrevocable licence.
(g) The averment in the plaint in OS No.252/2004 merely stated
that the property is required for the purpose of construction of a
school. While revoking the licence, the Bishop in his Kalpana dated
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
18
31.10.2003 had wrongly stated that the permission sought for by the
Association was granted subject to conditions.
(h) It is indisputable that, after the decision of the pothuyogam on
28.11.1926, the Bishop had granted permission to the Association
temporarily, subject to the condition that they produce the byelaw for
his perusal, and the subsequent conduct of the Bishop and the Church
in allowing the Association to continue for several decades would
clearly show that the Bishop had accepted the byelaw. Referring to
the byelaw, the learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that as per
clauses 83 and 86, the Association is entitled to hold the property
until the Association exists. It is only when the Association ceases to
exist, the property reverts back to the Church.
(i) Lastly, it is contended that going by the bylaw of the Church,
only the parishioners can represent the Church and therefore, the suit
is instituted without any authority.
(j) Though the findings are concurrent against the appellants, both
the trial court as well as the first appellate court had miserably failed
to consider these crucial aspects while decreeing the suit. The fact
that the plaintiff Church failed to produce the Kalpana by which the
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
19
request of the Association was accepted for granting licence would
lead to an adverse inference against the plaintiff and since the licensee
was not aware of any preconditions attached to the licence, they
cannot be put to the prejudice.
7. Sri.Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant in RSA No.1064/2013 raised the following submissions:
➢ The request dated 26.11.1926 made by the Association was
accepted by the pothuyogam of the Church subject to certain
conditions. But, however, since the Bishop had accepted the
request without any conditions, it is presumed that the licence
is irrevocable.
➢ Referring to Sections 52 and 60 of the Indian Easements Act,
1882, it is pointed out that since the Association had expended
considerable amount and constructed permanent structures,
the licence became irrevocable. Though the conditions under
Section 60 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 are subject to
contract, no such contract has been placed before the court in
order to conclude to the contrary.
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
20
8. On the other hand, Sri.K.Jayakumar, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff Church
raised the following submissions:
(a) It is incorrect to state that the Bishop has given its “imprimatur”
to the request of the Association. By referring to the word
“imprimatur” as per the tenets of the Canon Law, it is the submission
of Sri.K.Jayakumar, the learned Senior Counsel, that it only refers to
grant of permission to publish religious books.
(b) The application of the Association was not accepted in its
entirety, which is evident from the minutes of the pothuyogam held
on 28.12.1926.
(c) The decision of the pothuyogam, which is available in the
minutes recorded at page No.18 of Ext.A1(a) reveals that the
pothuyogam never wanted to grant an irrevocable licence.
(d) It is true that the Kalpana by which the permission was
accorded to the Catholic Young Men’s Association was not available,
but that by itself will not enable the Association to contend that what
is granted is an irrevocable licence.
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
21
(e) The subsequent Kalpana dated 31.10.2003 refers to the earlier
Kalpana of the Bishop which would throw a light on the fact that the
Bishop never accepted the request of the Association for an
irrevocable licence.
(f) As per the Code of the Canons of Eastern Churches, the Bishop
is the custodian of the temporal goods and that, as far as the juridic
matters are concerned, it is the Vicar, who is the proper authority to
represent the Church.
(g) In 1946, the Association made a further request to the Church
for allotting them additional property for the construction of a
playground. In their application, it is specifically admitted that the
conditions formulated by the pothuyogam in its meeting held on
28.11.1926 had been accepted by the Association, except clause 3,
which relates to construction of a toilet. Therefore, in the light of the
admission by the Association, none of the contentions raised before
this Court are sustainable.
(h) The filing of the suit, OS No.802/2003, would itself show that
the plea of the Association was only not to evict them, other than in
accordance with law. If, as a matter of fact, the Association had a case
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
22
that it was granted with an irrevocable licence, the suit would have
been framed in a better manner.
(i) In the suit preferred by the Association, the Managing Trustee
was made as a person representing the Church. In the written
statement filed by the Church, it was specifically pointed out that the
Vicar of the Church was entitled to represent the Church. By order
dated 13.01.2006, the trial court had ruled on the preliminary issue
and found that the suit filed by the Church represented by the Vicar
is maintainable. Therefore, it is submitted that none of the
contentions is maintainable.
9. In reply, Sri.George Cherian, the learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for the appellants in RSA Nos.925 & 941 of 2013 pointed
out that inasmuch as no agreement was executed, it has to be
concluded that there was an express grant. By referring to paragraph
No.6 of the plaint in OS No.252/2004, it is contended that the
decision of the pothuyogam as well as the averments in the plaint, do
not go together and once the Bishop has approved the byelaw, it is
deemed that an irrevocable licence has been granted. In Ext.A3
decision, there is only a direction to vacate the premises and not to
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
23
demolish and thus, it is pointed out that the Kalpana, Ext.A4, is not
in tune with the decision of the pothuyogam.
10. Sri.Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant in RSA No.1064/2013 in reply, would point out that from
the facts stated above, it is clear that there is an irrevocable licence
and therefore, it is impermissible for the pothuyogam of the Church
to recall the same. He supported the arguments of Sri.George Cherian,
the learned Senior Counsel, and prayed that the judgments and
decrees of the trial court and the first appellate court be reversed.
11. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the
bar and have perused the records and the judgments rendered by both
the trial court and the first appellate court.
12. While admitting RSA No.925/2013 on 12.8.2013, this
Court framed the following substantial questions of law:
“(i) Whether the courts below in the facts and
circumstances of the case went wrong in assuming that the
plaintiff church is governed by the code of canons especially
when such canon is not applicable to the Syro Malabar
church?
(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the courts
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
24below went wrong in holding that vicar can represent the
church especially when the role of vicar and clergy is
confined to the spiritual and ecclesiastical matters ?
(iii) Has not the courts below failed to consider the
distinction between spiritual and temporal matters in
Christian church?
(iv) Has not the courts below went wrong in holding
that there is a condition contrary to irrevocability of the
permission granted especially when there is no written
agreement between parties nor there any definite finding as
to the authority of grant and revocability?
(v)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case
has not the courts below went wrong in its finding on the
binding nature of Kalpana of Bishop to an Association,
which is distinct and different from parish members ?
(vi) Has not the courts below went wrong in not
dismissing the suit for want of sanction under Sec.92 of CPC
especially when the parish church is a constructive trust
created for public purposes of a charitable and religious
nature ?”
13. On a careful consideration of the substantial questions of
law as framed by this Court as above, it is evident that the pivotal issue
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
25
which falls for consideration in the present case could be categorised
into two.
(a) Whether the Church could be represented by the Vicar in juridic
affairs?
(b) Whether the licence granted in favour of the Catholic Young
Men’s Association is a revocable licence or an irrevocable one?
This Court has categorised these two issues for the sake of brevity,
because while answering the first issue, it will ultimately answer the
questions of law (i) to (iii).
14. Before proceeding to consider these issues, it may be
noted that one of the questions of law framed by this Court is as
regards the applicability of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
This Court deemed it appropriate to frame the aforesaid question in
the context of the maintainability of OS No.252/2004.
15. Before proceeding to consider the other disputes, it is felt
expedient to answer this question first, since the answer given to this
question will ultimately depend upon as to whether this Court should
proceed to consider the other issues or not.
16. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
26“92. Public charities.–(1) 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 is situate to obtain a decree :–
(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) authorizing the whole or any part of the trust
property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged;
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
27
(g) settling a scheme; or
(h) granting such further or other relief as the
nature of the case may require.
(2) Save as provided by the Religious Endowments Act,
1863 (XX of 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.
(3) The Court may alter the original purposes of an
express or constructive trust created for public purposes of
a charitable or religious nature and allow the property or
income of such trust or any portion thereof to be applied
cy pres in one or more of the following circumstances,
namely:–
(a) where the original purposes of the trust, in
whole or in part:–
(i) have been, as far as may be, fulfilled; or
(ii) cannot be carried out at all, or cannot be
carried out according to the directions given in the
instrument creating the trust or, where there is no such
instrument, according to the spirit of the trust; or
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
28
(b) where the original purposes of the trust provide
a use for a part only of the property available by virtue
of the trust; or
(c) where the property available by virtue of the
trust and other property applicable for similar purposes
can be more effectively used in conjunction with, and to
that end can suitably be made applicable to any other
purpose, regard being had to the spirit of the trust and
its applicability to common purposes; or
(d) where the original purposes, in whole or in part,
were laid down by reference to an area which then was,
but has since ceased to be, a unit for such purposes; or
(e) where the original purposes, in whole or in part,
have, since they were laid down:–
(i) been adequately provided for by other means,
or
(ii) ceased, as being useless or harmful to the
community, or
(iii) ceased to be, in law, charitable, or
(iv) ceased in any other way to provide a suitable
and effective method of using the property available by
virtue of the trust, regard being had to the spirit of the
trust.”
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
29
17. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision would reveal
that in a case where there is a breach of constructive trust, and a suit
is required to be instituted for administration of such trust, a leave is
required before instituting such suit. In the context, where a dispute
is between a church and an unincorporated association formed by the
members of the parish church, it is difficult to see as to how the rigor
of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply to such suits.
In the present case, what is attempted by the plaintiff in OS
No.252/2004 is a mandatory injunction causing the defendants and
an unincorporated association to submit the accounts so as to enable
them to pay off and terminate the licence agreement. Therefore, this
Court is of the considered view that in such circumstances a leave
under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not required and
accordingly, the question of law is answered against the appellants.
18. Having found that the leave of the court is not required for
instituting OS No.252/2004, it becomes imperative for this Court to
consider the question as to whether the plaintiff Church could be
represented by the Vicar. The appellants have a case that the plaintiff
Church is not governed by the Code of Canons of the Eastern
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
30
Churches. It is in this context that the contention is raised that the
Church cannot be represented by the Vicar. The endeavour of the
plaintiffs in OS No.802/2003 is to show that the suit laid by the
Church is not maintainable and if that be so, the substantial relief
sought against them would pale into insignificance. Before
proceeding to consider the aforesaid point, this Court needs to
consider certain indisputable facts as could be seen from the
averments in OS No.802/2003. In paragraph No.3 of
O.S.No.802/2003, it is stated as follows:
“3. The defendant is a Roman Catholic
Church and is represented by its Managing Trustee,
who is elected by the Edavaka Yogam of the Church.
The Edavaka Yogam is the association of the
parishoners of the Church.”
19. It is the case of the plaintiff that temporal and spiritual
matters of the Church are governed by the Code of Canons of the
Eastern Churches. Canons 1 and 290(1) read as under:
“Canon-1 : The cannons of this Code affect all and
solely the Eastern Catholic Churches, unless with
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
31regard to relations with the Latin Church, it is expressly
stated otherwise.”
xxx xxx xxx
"Canon-290 : (1) In all juridic affairs the pastor
represents the person of the parish.
Title-XXIII of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches deals with
‘temporal goods of the church’. Canons 1007, 1008, 1009 and 1023
under the said Title read as under:
Canon 1007 – In looking after the spiritual well-being
of people, the Church needs and uses temporal goods,
inasmuch as its proper mission demands it; therefore it
has an innate right of acquiring. possessing,
administering and alienating those temporal goods that
are necessary to pursue its proper ends, especially for
divine worship, works of the apostolate and of charity
and fitting support of ministers.
Canon 1008 – §1. The Roman Pontiff is the supreme
administrator and steward of all ecclesiastical goods.
§2. Under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff,
ownership of temporal goods of the Church belongs to
that juridic person which has lawfully acquired them.
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
32Canon 1009 – §1. All juridic persons are capable of
acquiring, possessing, administering and alienating
temporal goods in accordance with the norm of canon
law.
§2. All temporal goods which belong to juridic persons
are ecclesiastical goods.”
xxx xxx xxx
Canon 1023 – Unless the law provides otherwise, the
administration of the ecclesiastical goods of a juridic
person is the responsibility of the one who immediately
governs it.”
Thus, a cumulative reading of the canons as quoted above would
show that under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff,
ownership of temporal goods of the Church belongs to that juridic
person, which was lawfully acquired by them.
20. That apart, a preliminary issue was raised by the
defendants in OS No.252/2004 as regards the maintainability of the
suit. The applicability of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches
(CCEC) was extensively dealt with by the trial court and by order
dated 13.01.2006, the trial court upheld the applicability of the Code
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
33
of Canons of the Eastern Churches to the plaintiff Church and held
that the suit instituted by the Vicar is maintainable. It is pertinent to
mention that the said issue was not carried forward. However, though
that by itself may not preclude the appellants to raise this question in
these appeals, this Court finds that the trial court had rightly
considered the applicability of the Code of Canons of the Eastern
Churches and found that the suit instituted by the plaintiff Church as
represented by the Vicar is maintainable. Accordingly, this Court
holds that the suit instituted by the plaintiff Church is perfectly
maintainable and the trial court and the first appellate court did not
commit any error in holding that the suit is maintainable.
Accordingly, the questions of law Nos.(i) to (iii) raised above are
answered against the appellants.
21. The more vexatious and debatable issue raised before this
Court is as regards the character of the licence under which the
appellants (Catholic Young Men’s Association) were permitted to
occupy the plaint schedule property. Before answering the intricate
question raised before this Court, it is necessary to look into certain
sequence of events which led the plaintiff Church to grant sanction to
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
34
the Catholic Young Men’s Association to hold the property. On
31.12.1101 ME, an application was given by the Catholic Young Men’s
Association before the plaintiff Church. The application was
processed by the pothuyogam. On 31.12.1101 ME, the pothuyogam
of the Church took a decision, and the conditions under which the
pothuyogam decided to grant sanction to the Catholic Young Men’s
Association to hold the property are extracted hereunder:
1) സി.വൈ.എം.എ.ക്കാർ അപേക്ഷിച്ചിരിക്കു
ന്നതനുസരിച്ച് ടി സ്ഥലത്ത് കെട്ടിടം കൈച്ച്
ഉേപ ാഗിക്കുന്നതിന് അനുൈദിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു. എന്നാൽ
ടി സ്ഥലകത്ത സംബന്ധിച്ച് സി.വൈ.എം.എ. ുകട
സവാതന്ത്രത്തിന് തടസ്സം ഇല്ലാകത ും, േള്ളി ുകട
സവാതന്ത്രത്തിന് തടസ്സം ഇല്ലാകത ും
ഉേപ ാഗിപക്കണ്ടതാെുന്നു.
2) സി.വൈ.എം.എ.നടപ്പിലിരിക്കുന്ന ൊലത്ത് ടി
കെട്ടിടം ഇരിക്കുന്ന സ്ഥലം േള്ളി ുകട മറ്റ്
ഏകതങ്കിലും ൊരയത്തിന് ആൈശ്യകേട്ടു,
സി.വൈ.എം.എ. ന്ത്േധാന കെട്ടിടം
കോളിപക്കണ്ടിൈന്നാൽ ആൈെ എല്ലാ കെട്ടിടത്തിനും
ൈില സി.വൈ.എം.എ. ുകട െണക്ക് അനുസരിച്ച്
േള്ളി ിൽ നിന്ന് കൊടുപക്കണ്ടതും, ടി
3) ടി സ്ഥലത്ത് െക്കൂസ് കൈച്ചുെൂടാത്തതാെുന്നു.
4) ടി അപേക്ഷ ിൽ അതിഥി മന്ദിരം എന്ന്
എഴുതി ിരിക്കുന്നത് നടപ്പാക്കുന്നതാ ിരുന്നാൽ ഈ
േള്ളി ുകട ൈിൊരി അച്ചൻകെ അനുമതിപ ാടുെൂടി
നടപത്തണ്ടതാെുന്നു.
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
35
5) സി.വൈ.എം.എ.കെട്ടിടം ഓല കെട്ടി
കൈച്ചുെൂടാത്തതാെുന്നു.
6) ടി അപേക്ഷ പ ാഗ ത ത്തിൽ
േുസ്െ േെർത്തി
ൈിൊരി അച്ചൻ അട ാളം കൈ ക്ക
് ുെ ും പൈണം."
This decision was forwarded to the Bishop and Kalpana No.1896 was
issued [Ext.A1(b)]. The Bishop, in turn, granted a temporary
permission, since the bylaw of the Association was not placed before
him and that he wanted to verify the various conditions incorporated
in the bylaw in order to make sure that the same does not run contrary
to the interest of the Church. It is thereafter that the Catholic Young
Men’s Association came into occupation of the plaint schedule
property. For nearly two decades, the Association proceeded to hold
the property. On 26.11.1946, the Association once again requested the
plaintiff Church to allot them additional land for the purpose of
constructing a playground. The request made to the general body of
the Association on 26.11.1946, which is available at page 132
[Ext.A1(c)], shows that they had accepted all the conditions
prescribed by the pothuyogam dated 28.11.1926, except condition
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
36
No.3 which relates to the construction of a toilet. The relevant portion
of the request reads as under:
"ഇപ്പോൾ സമോജം കെട്ടിടം നിൽക്കുന്ന സ്ഥലം
അനുവദിക്കുന്നതിന് 1926 നവംബർ 26-၁൦ തീയതി
തത്തംപള്ളി പ്യോഗത്തിൽ വച്ച ഏതോനും വയവസ്ഥെൾ
സമോജം സവീെരിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളതും ടി വയവസ്ഥെൾ 3-၁൦
വെുപിൽ പറയുന്ന വയവസ്ഥ ഒഴിച്ച് മറ്റു വയവസ്ഥെൾ
എല്ോം തകന്ന ഇപ്പോൾ സമോജം ആവശ്യകപടുന്ന സ്ഥലകത്ത
സംബന്ധിച്ചും സമോജം സവീെരിക്കോൻ തയ്യോറുള്ളതും
ആെുന്നു. അതുകെോണ്ട് പ്മൽ പ്പസ്തോവിച്ചിരിക്കുന്ന സ്ഥലം
സമോജത്തിൻകറ ഈ അപ്പക്ഷോനുസരണം സമോജകത്ത
ഏൽപിക്കുവോൻ ദയവുണ്ടോെണകമന്ന് അപ്പക്ഷിക്കുന്നു.”
This was again acted upon by the Church and it was stated that this
application was processed and permission was granted, wherein it
was specifically stated that the title of the land will continue to be
vested with the Church.
22. Once the pothuyogam of the plaintiff Church by Ext.A3
decided to recall the permission granted to the Catholic Young Men’s
Association, the same was sent up for the approval of the Bishop who
issued Ext.A4 Kalpana. Ext.A4 Kalpana No.922/2003 reveals that
the main reason attributable against the Association was that the
Association was standing against the general interest of the Church.
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
37
On appreciating the various aspects, the Bishop concluded that the
land in question had to be reclaimed back on condition that the
appropriate expenses incurred for the construction of the building
would be met by the Church. Accordingly, the request of the
pothuyogam held on 31.8.2003 was approved.
23. Immediately thereafter, the Association preferred OS
No.802/2003. The filing of the suit would operate in a way against
the cause projected by them before this Court. A reading of the plaint
in OS No.802/2003 would clearly show that, they were aware of the
Kalpana dated 31.10.2003 (Ext.A4) and they were required to vacate
the premises within 30 days. It is pertinent to mention here that, the
reliefs sought for in the suit will clearly erode the case projected by the
appellants before this Court. The relief sought for, is to restrain the
defendant Church and persons claiming under it from forcibly
evicting the plaintiff Association from the plaint schedule property
and from demolishing the plaint schedule item No.2 property and
from interfering in anyway with the plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment of
the plaint schedule properties. Therefore, the essence of the prayer is
that, they should not be summarily evicted. The understanding of the
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
38
Association as regards the grant of licence could be clearly spelt out
in the nature of the reliefs sought for by them in OS No.802/2003.
Therefore, in the light of the specific averments contained in OS
No.802/2003, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the Association
was granted an absolute right to continue in the property, thereby
giving an impression that the licence is irrevocable.
24. However, this Court must also say that the conclusion
reached by this Court as above is not merely based on the averments
contained in the suit filed by the Association. The sequence of events
described before this Court right from the time of making application
by the Association, the decision of the pothuyogam of the Church, and
the grant of permission of the Bishop and also the subsequent conduct
of the Association in asking for further permission to construct a
playground, would give an irresistible impression that the permission
sought for and granted by the Church and as understood by them is
only a revocable licence.
25. It is in this context that this Court needs to consider the
contention of the Senior Counsel, Sri. George Cherian, that there is an
“imprimatur” of the Bishop on the byelaw of the Association. This
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
39
contention is raised presumably to give an impression that once the
Bishop stamps his authority over the decision of the pothuyogam,
there is a deemed grant of irrevocable licence. Sri.George Cherian
would further take this Court to Ext.B1, which is as same as Ext.A2.
Ext.A2 is the byelaw of the Association. Reference is made to two
clauses, namely 83 and 86, to contend that the Association is entitled
to hold the property unless and until it becomes extinct. For the sake
of convenience, these clauses are extracted hereunder:
“83. സമാജം ഇല്ലാതാകുക
ഈ സമാജം നടത്തികക്കാണ്ടു പോെുന്നതിനു 11
സാമാജിെന്മാകരങ്കിലും ഇല്ലാതിരിക്കുെ ും 12 മാസം
ൈകര സമാജത്തിൻകെ ാകതാരു നടേടി ും
നടക്കാതിരിക്കുെ ും കെയ്യുപപാൾ അക്കാലകത്ത
തത്തംേള്ളി േള്ളി ുകട ബ: ൈിൊരി ച്ചൻതത്തംേള്ളി െപത്താലിക്ക ുൈജന സമാജം ഇല്ലാതാ ി
എന്നു േള്ളി പ ാഗത്തികല നടേടി ത ത്തിൽ
േുസ്െ
പരഖകപ്പടുത്തുെ ും, ആ ൈിൈരം ന്ത്േൊരമുള്ളൈർത്തമാന േന്ത്തത്തിൽ ന്ത്േസിദ്ധകപ്പടുത്തുെ ും
കെയ്യുപപാൾ സമാജം അൈസാനിക്കുന്നതാണ്.”
xxx xxx xxx
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
40
"86. സമാജം അവസാനിക്കുമ്പാൾ സമാജ സവത്തു
വിനിമ് ാഗിമ്ക്കണ്ട രീതി
സമാജം അൈസാനിച്ചതാ ി സ്ഥിരാദ്ധയക്ഷൻ
േരസയകപ്പടുത്തി തിനുപശ്ഷം സമാജ സവത്തുക്കളിൽ
തത്തംേള്ളി ൈെ സ്ഥലത്ത് സമാജം ൈെ ാ ുള്ള
കെട്ടിടങ്ങൾ തത്തംേള്ളി േള്ളിക്കു പെരുന്നതും
േണമാ ും മറ്റു സവത്തുക്കളാ ുമുള്ളത് രണ്ടാ ി ഭാഗിച്ച്
ഒരു ഭാഗം െങ്ങനാപേരി അതിരൂേത ികല പൈദ
ന്ത്േൊരത്തിനാ ിട്ടും ഒരു ഭാഗം ഈ സമാജത്തികല
അംഗങ്ങളാ ി ഇരുന്നൈരുകട ും ഈ സമാജത്തിനു
പൈണ്ടി ധന സഹാ ം കെയ്തിട്ടുള്ളൈരുകട ും
ആത്മ്മീ ലൗെീൊഭിൈൃദ്ധിക്കാ ി ൈിശ്ുദ്ധ െുർബ്ബാന
കൊല്ലുന്നതിനാ ി െങ്ങനാപേരി അതിരൂേത ുകട
എ.കേ.ബ.കമന്ത്തപപ്പാലീത്താ തിരുപമനിക
ഏൽപ്പിക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള അധിൊരൈും അൈൊശ്ൈും
അക്കാലകത്ത തത്തംേള്ളി േള്ളി ുകട
ബ.ൈിൊരി ാച്ചനുള്ളതുമാെുന്നു."
26. Read as may, this Court could not find any provision
under the byelaw, especially these two clauses, which would give an
absolute right to the Association to hold property under a licence
agreement and to use the property as if it owns it. In the realm of law
relating to easements, it is difficult to hold that a licensee would get
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
41an absolute right title and interest over the property and would hold
the property in derogation of the rights of the true owner.
27. Every license originates in a grant made by one person in
favour of another or a definite number of persons. Most importantly,
in a licence what is granted is only to do something which would in
the absence of such grant be unlawful. Equally important to note that,
a person to whom the grant is made, does not acquire any right
whatsoever including easement right or any interest in the property.
Therefore, it can be safely said when a grant is made, a right of
possession for enjoyment alone is granted. Such right is not a judicial
possession but amounts to mere occupation. Possession being a legal
concept, one of the most essential ingredients is the specification of
conditions under which the grant is made. The conditions of the grant
in turn decides whether such licence is irrevocable or revocable.
Therefore, even if it is assumed that certain clauses are incorporated
in the byelaw touching upon the entitlement of the Association to hold
the property, that cannot operate against the true owner. In a given
circumstance, a licensee may hold the property and treat the property
of his own, but to contend that because of the byelaw of an
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
42incorporated association there exist a clause, which provides that, the
property will revert back to the true owner only when the Association
becomes extinct, would be highly preposterous and cannot be given
sanctity of law.
28. On an anxious consideration of the provisions contained
in Ext.A2 byelaw, this court holds that the clauses cannot affect the
rights of the church since it being the true owner and on contrary
intended to operate on the property acquired by the association and
its possession as an owner. Any other contrary view will lead to a
travesty of justice qua the plaintiff in OS No.252/2004.
29. Coming back to the assertion of the learned Senior
Counsel, Sri.George Cherian, that the Bishop had granted his
“imprimatur” on the conditions of the byelaw and therefore, there is
an implied grant of an irrevocable licence, this Court is not in a
position to appreciate the contention, especially since there is nothing
on record to show that the Bishop has granted an “imprimatur” on
the request of the association so as infer an irrevocable implied licence.
Although, both the Senior Counsel are at serious variance as regards
the true purport of the word “imprimatur”, this Court finds that it is
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
43not necessary to consider the same especially since the evidence on
records clearly suggest that the Bishop had not granted any absolute
right in favour of the Association. This is more so because, the
appellants themselves had understood the grant of licence as a
revocable one when they addressed the plaintiff church for
sanctioning of additional space for construction of a playground. Thus,
sufficient evidence is available in the present case to hold that the
licence is revocable.
30. This Court is further fortified in its views, especially since
the Association themselves have only sought a prohibitory injunction
restraining the Church from forcibly evicting them from the plaint
schedule property. Therefore, it follows that the association
themselves were quite aware of the consequences that may crop up
once the licence is sought to be revoked.
31. It is in this context, this Court needs to consider the
impact of Section 60 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. Section 60(b)
of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 no doubt, prevents a licensor from
revoking the licence, if based on the representation, the licensee had
put up permanent structures in the licensed premises. However, the
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
44condition prescribed under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements
Act is not exhaustive in nature.
32. In Ram Sarup Gupta Vs Bishun Narain Inter college
[(1987) 2 SCC 555], the Supreme Court held that the conditions
under Section 60(a) and (b) of the Indian Easements Act 1882 are not
exhaustive. Even in an oral lease, the parties by conduct may treat it
as irrevocable or revocable, and it depends on the appreciation of the
evidence in each case.
33. From the evidence discussed above, this Court finds that the
grant of licence was subject to certain conditions. Therefore, the
licensee cannot be heard to contend that the licence was irrevocable,
because he had put up structures of permanent nature with the
permission of the licensor. It is pertinent to note that, even in the
absence of an express agreement, an implied licence could be
construed. However, even in a case of implied grant of license, it is
difficult to infer a condition of irrevocability, unless there are strong
indication to the contrary. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to
hold that the appellants are holding the property under an
2025:KER:46796
RSA Nos.925, 941 and 1064 of 2013
45irrecoverable licence. Accordingly, the questions of law raised as (iv)
and (v) are answered against the appellants.
Resultantly, this Court finds that the appellants have not made
out a case for interference with the judgment and decree of the trial
court as confirmed by the first appellate court. Accordingly, these
appeals fail and the same are dismissed. The respondent/plaintiff in
OS No.252 of 2004 will be entitled to costs throughout.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
jg