Kerala High Court
The Patriarch Of Antioch And All The East vs Abraham Joseph on 11 July, 2025
1
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1947
O.P.(C) NO.819 OF 2025
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2025 IN CMA NO.54 OF 2024 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2024 IN OS NO.206 OF 2024
OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM)
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT:
THE PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH AND ALL THE EAST,
AGED 59 YEARS,
SYRIAN ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE, BAB TOUMA, DAMASCUS, SYRIA,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER T.O. ALEYAS,
S/O. LATE KURUVILLA UNNITTAN, THOTTATHIL HOUSE,
MUTHOOR P.O., MUTHOOR MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE,
THIRUVALLA TALUK, PIN - 689 107
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JOHN VITHAYATHIL
SRI.ISAAC THOMAS
SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT NOS. 2 TO 8:
1 ABRAHAM JOSEPH, S/O. E.I. ABRAHAM EZHUMAYIL,
EZHUMAYIL HOUSE, CHANNANIKADU (P.O.),
CHANNANIKADU MURI, PANACHIKKADU VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 533
2 LINSO ELIAS, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. FR. ELIAS ELAVANKULAM,
ELAVANKULAM HOUSE, KUMARAMKERRY (P.O.), VALADY,
NEELAMPEROOR VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, PIN - 686 105
2
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
3 KURIAKOSE MOR SEVERIOS, AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O. LATE ABRAHAM, METROPOLITAN, KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE,
MOR EPHRAIM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM (P.O.), NATTAKOM VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM TALUK, PIN - 686 531
4 MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA SAMUDAYAM,
MOR EPHRAIM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM (P.O.),
NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS LAY TRUSTEE, PIN - 686 531
5 MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ASSOCIATION,
MOR EPHRAIM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM (P.O.),
NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686 531
6 MOR GREGORIOS KURIAKOSE, AGED 70 YEARS,
S/O. LATE THOMAS, REGIONAL METROPOLITAN,
KALLISSERY REGION OF MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ARCH
DIOCESE, BETHNEHERIN BISHOP'S HOUSE, VALLAMKULAM,
THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689 541
7 MOR IVANIOS KURIAKOSE, AGED 59 YEARS,
S/O. LATE K.G. ABRAHAM, REGIONAL METROPOLITAN,
RANNI REGION OF MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE,
URAHA BISHOP'S HOUSE, NEAR ST. THOMAS VALIYAPALLI,
ANGADI (P.O.), RANNI, PIN - 689 674
8 TINU ABRAHAM THOTTUPURATHU, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O. FR. T.T. ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT THOTTUPURATHU HOUSE,
VENPALA (P.O.), VENPALA MURI, KUTTOOR VILLAGE, PIN - 689 102
9 AYUB MOR SILVANOS, AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O UTHUPPAN METROPOLITAN,
NORTH AMERICA & EUROPE REGION OF THE MALANKARA SURIYANI
KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE, 7 MARTINO WAY, POMONA NY,
USA, PIN - 10970
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SHRI.SUNDEEP ABRAHAM
SHRI.PAUL JACOB
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SMT.SHERU JOSEPH
3
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
SHRI.MATHEW THOMAS
SMT.NIKITTA TRESSY GEORGE
SHRI.DIPAK CHERIAN ABRAHAM
SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.
SHRI.AMAL AMIR ALI
SRI.S.RAMESH CHANDER
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.R.GITHESH
SHRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
SHRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
SMT.ANNA LINDA EDEN
SMT.ANAVADYA SANIL KUMAR
SMT.ANJALI KRISHNA
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 30.06.2025, ALONG
WITH OP(C).825/2025, 826/2025, THE COURT ON 11.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
4
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1947
O.P.(C) NO.825 OF 2025
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2025 IN CMA NO.56 OF 2024
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2024
IN OS NO.264 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM)
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT:
THE PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH AND ALL THE EAST,
AGED 59 YEARS, SYRIAN ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE, BAB TOUMA,
DAMASCUS, SYRIA, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
T.O. ALEYAS AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE KURUVILLA UNNITTAN,
THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR P.O., MUTHOOR MURI,
THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PIN - 689 107
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JOHN VITHAYATHIL
SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.)
SRI.ISAAC THOMAS
SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS:
1 O.T. JACOB, S/O. THOMAS, OTHARA HOUSE, CHERUKULANJI (P.O.),
RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 673
2 KURIAKOSE MOR SEVERIOS, AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O. LATE ABRAHAM, METROPOLITAN, KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE,
MOR EPHRAIM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM (P.O.), NATTAKOM VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM TALUK, PIN - 686 531
5
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
3 THE MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA SAMUDAYAM,
MOR EPHRAIM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM (P.O.),
NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS LAY TRUSTEE, PIN - 686 531
4 THE MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ASSOCIATION,
MOR EPHRAIM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM (P.O.),
NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686 531
5 TINU ABRAHAM THOTTUPURATHU, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O. FR. T.T. ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT THOTTUPURATHU HOUSE,
VENPALA (P.O.), VENPALA MURI, KUTTOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATAHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 102
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE - FOR R1
SRI.K.JAYA KUMAR (SR.)
SHRI.SUNDEEP ABRAHAM - FOR R2
SHRI.PAUL JACOB - FOR R3 & R4
SRI.JACOB P.ALEX - FOR R5
SMT.SHERU JOSEPH
SHRI.MATHEW THOMAS
SMT.NIKITTA TRESSY GEORGE
SHRI.DIPAK CHERIAN ABRAHAM
SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.
SRI.ANIL D.KARTHA - FOR R1
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 30.06.2025, ALONG
WITH OP(C).819/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 11.07.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
6
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1947
O.P.(C) NO.826 OF 2025
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2025 IN CMA NO.59 OF 2024
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2024
IN OS NO.206 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM)
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT:
THE PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH AND ALL THE EAST,
SYRIAN ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE, BAB TOUMA, DAMASCUS,
SYRIA, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
T.O. ALEYAS, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE KURUVILLA UNNITTAN,
THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR P.O., MUTHOOR MURI,
THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PIN - 689 107
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JOHN VITHAYATHIL
SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.)
SRI.ISAAC THOMAS
SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ABRAHAM JOSEPH, S/O. E.I. ABRAHAM EZHUMAYIL,
EZHUMAYIL HOUSE, CHANNANIKADU (P.O.), CHANNANIKADU MURI,
PANACHIKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 533
2 LINSO ELIAS, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. FR. ELIAS ELAVANKULAM,
ELAVANKULAM HOUSE, KUMARAMKERRY (P.O.), VALADY,
NEELAMPEROOR VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, PIN - 686 105
3 KURIAKOSE MOR SEVERIOS, AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O. LATE ABRAHAM, METROPOLITAN,
7
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE, MOR EPHRAIM SEMINARY,
CHINGAVANAM (P.O.), NATTAKOM VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM TALUK, PIN - 686 531
4 MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA SAMUDAYAM,
MOR EPHRAIM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM (P.O.),
NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS LAY TRUSTEE, PIN - 686 531
5 MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ASSOCIATION,
MOR EPHRAIM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM (P.O.), NATTAKOM VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686 531
6 MOR GREGORIOS KURIAKOSE, AGED 70 YEARS,
S/O. LATE THOMAS, REGIONAL METROPOLITAN,
KALLISSERY REGION OF MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ARCH
DIOCESE, BETHNEHERIN BISHOP'S HOUSE, VALLAMKULAM,
THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689 541
7 MOR IVANIOS KURIAKOSE, AGED 59 YEARS,
S/O. LATE K.G. ABRAHAM, REGIONAL METROPOLITAN,
RANNI REGION OF MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE,
URAHA BISHOP'S HOUSE, NEAR ST. THOMAS VALIYAPALLI,
ANGADI (P.O.), RANNI, PIN - 689 674
8 TINU ABRAHAM THOTTUPURATHU, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O. FR. T.T. ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT THOTTUPURATHU HOUSE,
VENPALA (P.O.), VENPALA MURI, KUTTOOR VILLAGE, PIN - 689 102
9 AYUB MOR SILVANOS, AGED 50 YEARS,
/O UTHUPPAN, METROPOLITAN,
NORTH AMERICA & EUROPE REGION OF THE MALANKARA SURIYANI
KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE, 7 MARTINO WAY, POMONA NY,
USA, PIN - 10970
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SHRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) - FOR R1
SHRI.SUNDEEP ABRAHAM - FOR R3
SHRI.PAUL JACOB - FOR R4 & R5
SHRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX - FOR R6 - R9
SHRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SMT.SHERU JOSEPH
8
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
SHRI.MATHEW THOMAS
SMT.NIKITTA TRESSY GEORGE
SHRI.DIPAK CHERIAN ABRAHAM
SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.
SHRI.AMAL AMIR ALI
SHRI.S.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) FOR R6 - R9
SHRI.P.PRIJITH
SHRI.R.GITHESH
SHRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
SHRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
SMT.ANNA LINDA EDEN
SMT.ANAVADYA SANIL KUMAR
SMT.ANJALI KRISHNA
SHRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
SHRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 30.06.2025, ALONG
WITH OP(C).819/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 11.07.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
9
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Dated: 11th July, 2025)
[OP(C) Nos.819/2025, 825/2025, 826/2025]
O.P.(C) No.819 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner /1st defendant
for challenging the common order dated 4.3.2025 passed in I.A.No.2
of 2024 in C.M.A. No.54 of 2024 by the Additional District Judge-V,
Kottayam, and to allow the I.A., by staying the execution and
operation of the order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Munsiff Court,
Kottayam, in I.A. No.2 of 2024, in O.S. No.206 of 2024.
O.P.(C) No.825 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner/1st defendant
in the suit for setting aside the common order passed in I.A.No.2 of
2024 in C.M.A. No.56 of 2024 dated 04.03.2025 by the Additional
District Judge-V, Kottayam, and allow the application by staying the
operation and execution of the order/Ext.P3, passed in O.S. No.264 of
2024 in I.A. No.1 of 2024 dated 27.08.2024 in C.M.A. No.54 of 2024
and C.M.A. No.56 of 2024.
O.P.(C) No.826 of 2025 was filed by the same petitioner/1 st
defendant in the suit by challenging the common order passed in I.A.
10
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
No.2 of 2024 in C.M.A. No.59 of 2024 dated 04.03.2025 by the
Additional District Judge-V, Kottayam, and to allow the application by
staying the operation and execution of the order dated 27.08.2024
passed in I.A. No.2 of 2024 in O.S. No.206 of 2024 by the Munsiff
Court, Kottayam.
2. The Munsiff Court, Kottayam, passed orders in I.A. No.2
of 2024 in O.S. No.206 of 2024; orders in I.A. No.1 of 2024 on
27.08.2024 in O.S. No.264 of 2024, and on the same day i.e., on
27.08.2024 in I.A. No.2 of 2024 in O.S. No.206 of 2024, wherein the
Munsiff Court, Kottayam, granted injunction in favour of the
respondent/plaintiffs in O.S.No.206 of 2024 and O.S.No.264 of 2024
by common order, restraining the petitioner from taking any
disciplinary action against the 2nd respondent, called on Metropolitan
and the implementation of the bull E1-30/24 was kept in abeyance till
disposal of the said suits.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the 1st defendant,
namely Patriarch of Antioch, filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in
11
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
C.M.A. Nos.54 of 2024, 56 of 2024, and 59 of 2024 under Order 43
Rule 1(r) C.P.C. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed I.A.
No.2 of 2024 in all the three cases for staying the execution and
operation of the order passed by the Munsiff Court, Kottayam.
4. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the District
Judge dismissed the application by refusing to stay the injunction order
passed by the Munsiff, as against the appellant/petitioner by order
dated 04.03.2025. Accordingly, the petitioners /1st defendant filed
these petitions before this court.
5. All the three petitions are arising out of the common order
passed by the Munsiff Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court in I.As,
hence, taken together for passing a common judgment.
6. I have heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.Joseph Kodian-
thara, and Sri.John Vithayathil, learned counsel appearing for the pe-
titioner; Senior counsel Sri.Jayakumar, and Sri.Sundeep Abraham,
learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent; Senior counsel Sri.
12
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
S.Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st plaintiff in
O.S.No.206 of 2024; Senior Counsel Sri. M. Ramesh Chander,
Sri.G.Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the additional 8 th re-
spondent, Sri. Paul Jacob, learned counsel appearing for respondents
3 and 4; Sri.Jacob P. Alex and Manu Sankar, learned counsel appearing
for the 5th respondent, and Sri. Amal Amur Ali, learned counsel ap-
pearing for respondents 6 to 9.
7. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order
passed by the District Judge as well as the Munsiff Court, is absolutely
illegal, perverse, and unsustainable. The courts below have interpreted
the provisions of the Knanaya Samudaya constitution in a totally
erroneous and absurd manner. The Supreme Authority of Patriarch is
categorically recognized and described beyond any shadow of doubt
in the preamble, Article 4, Article 66, Article 83(C), Article 84 (2),
Article 98(A), Article 104, and Article 116(A) of the 2003 Knanaya
Constitution/Bye Law. The Knanaya Constitution authorized the
13
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
Patriarch to appoint the second defendant Metropolitan, and he was
appointed by the Patriarch as a Metropolitan of the Knanaya Diocese.
Therefore, the Patriarch has distinct/disciplinary authority over the
Metropolitan as per Clause 84(2) of the Knanaya Constitution. Where
the power to make an appointment has been confirmed, then unless a
different intention appears, the authorities allow power to suspend or
dismiss any person appointed in exercising the power. The order
passed by the Munsiff is purely a personal benefit to the 2nd defendant;
therefore, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the plaintiffs in both
the suits have no locus standi to file the above-mentioned suits. The
2nd defendant was the aggrieved person, who is a Metropolitan has
accepted the order passed by the petitioner/Patriarch, and the plaintiffs
are not aggrieved persons in respect of the disciplinary action initiated
against the 2nd defendant/Metropolitan. Therefore, the suits filed by
the plaintiffs are not maintainable as there is no locus standi to file the
above-mentioned suits. When the suit itself is filed by the plaintiff
14
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
without any locus standi, the question of granting any injunction in
favour does not arise.
8. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
plaintiffs cannot be aggrieved by an action against the Metropolitan,
since another Metropolitan has been given charge of the suspended 2nd
defendant /Metropolitan, and the Knanaya Committee is being
administered effectively. The 2nd defendant/Metropolitan himself
commands the directions of the Patriarch, and after receipt of
Salmooso, the Patriarch issued Sustaticon/appointing the Metropolitan
under Clause 83(c) of the Knanaya Constitution. The Patriarch is the
ultimate authority in appointing the Metropolitan. It is further
contended that the 2nd defendant himself voluntarily submitted to the
authority of the Patriarch and participated in the disciplinary
proceedings. But, the 2nd defendant/Metropolitan has not approached
the court by challenging the bull, which suspending him; instead, he
has deposed an affidavit that he is willing to repent and obey the
15
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
nd
direction of the Patriarch. The 2 defendant has always expressed his
readiness to repent and obey the directions of His Holiness and
perform his duties in accordance with the Church Constitution and
Samudaya Constitution, and also abide by the local civil laws. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has said that the Knanaya Samudayam
is to be governed by its own Constitution, and the 1 st respondent has
been given authority under the Knanaya constitution, which is to be
exercised under the authority vested in him as per the Universal Syrian
Orthodox Church Constitution and the canon laws. It is further
contended by the counsel that the Knanaya Constitution is subservient
to the canon laws, the Church Constitution, as well as the laws of the
country and the judgment of the courts in India. The petitioner/1 st
defendant is the Supreme Head of the Universal Syrian Orthodox
Church of Antioch and all the East. The 2nd defendant/3rd respondent
was consecrated by the petitioner to administer the 3rd respond-
ent/Metropolitan in accordance with the Church Constitution, the
16
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
Samudaya Constitution, and local statutes and laws of the country.
9. The counsel for the petitioner also contended that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court declared any matters between the appointing
authority/appropriate appointee and other persons or busybodies who
do not have any locus standi in the case of Ranjith Prasad v. Union
of India [(2000) 9 SCC 313]. It is further contended that the authority
of the Patriarch or Patriarchs in the affairs of the Knanaya Samudayam
was adjudicated, the judgment was confirmed, and the decisive
adjudication of the superior courts, which are directly crucial issues
involved in this case, which were overlooked by both the courts below.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that
the District Judge committed error in the impugned order at paragraph
31 that A1 constitution and appeal have been provided to the Patriarch
against the administrative and crucial decision/spiritual decision taken
by the Metropolitan. But the administrative matter or special
matter/crucial matters prima facie cannot be held that the Metropolitan
17
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
has got supremacy over the Patriarchs in administrative matters. A1
Constitution does not provide any leeway or direction either on the
Metropolitan or Assistant Metropolitan or even on the Knanaya
Association to defy the bulls issued by the Patriarch. The High Court
of Kerala in O.P.(C) No.7096 of 2020, wherein, it was categorically
held that the Patriarch is the supreme power over the administration
by appointing the Metropolitan, the order of the District Judge has
been upheld, and the same was challenged before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. Hence, the SLP came to be dismissed. Therefore, the
order under challenge passed by both the Court below is unsustainable.
11. It is further contended that the court below completely
failed to advert to, and leeway alone consider, and thereby totally
ignored the fact that no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, and
the court below has found interim orders containing reasoned
principles or binding precedents. The impugned order is allowed to
stand; nobody can take any action against the Metropolitan, who is
18
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
subordinate to the Patriarch and the Synod of Bishops, which would
result in a completely absurd situation. The observation and findings
regarding the Jacobite faction in the P.M.A. Metropolitan’s case and
K.S. Varghese case were applied out of context to the instant case by
the court below without application of mind. The order was passed by
both the court below, patently illegal, and overlooked the
administration and affairs of the Knanaya Samudayam, a Christian
community with a unique tradition and history, which was managed
by the Holy Antioch through the Metropolitans appointed or author-
ized by the throne of Antioch. Hence, the order under challenge is
erroneous, unsustainable and liable to be set aside, and accordingly
prayed for allowing the petitions and stay the injunction granted by the
Civil Judge/Additional Munsiff Court, Kottayam, and also to set aside
the order passed by the District Judge in I.A.No.2 of 2024, in the said
application in C.M.As.
12. Per contra, learned Senior counsels appearing for 1st
19
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
respondent, who is the plaintiff and also the senior counsel appearing
for the 3rd respondent/2nd defendant Metropolitan has supported the
orders passed by both the court below and contended that the order of
the Patriarch, i.e., ‘Kalpana’/’Bull’, issued against the 2nd defendant
cannot be sustainable under the law, where the Patriarch is having only
spiritual superior, but not the administrative functions of the
Metropolitan. The Metropolitan was elected by the members of the
Church and the Patriarch, being a spiritual leader formally, he appoints
the Metropolitan, but only getting the blessings of the Spiritual
Leader/Patriarch, and he cannot interfere in the temporal affairs of the
Metropolitan, who is the head of the Knanaya Samudayam. Both the
plaintiffs were members of the Knanaya Samudayam/Association,
which is having President, Secretary, and other office bearers. The
plaintiffs have directly file any complaint for the purpose of
adjudication before the Metropolitan, and any order passed by the
Metropolitan is directly affecting the members of the Knanaya
20
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
Samudayam; therefore, both the plaintiffs have locus standi to file the
suit.
13. It is also contended that the suits have been filed in
representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8 of CPC. A paper
publication was also issued. Therefore, various other persons also join
in the case by supporting the plaintiff’s contention. Such being the
case, the action taken by the Patriarch/petitioner is directly affecting
the members of the Knanaya Samudayam, therefore, they have a locus
standi to file this suit.
14. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents further con-
tended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had already held in the earlier
Judgments in 1958, 1995, and 2017, holding that the 1934 Constitution
is prevail over the Community and the constitution of the Knanaya
Samudayam, which was came into effect from 1918 has been upheld
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and any subsequent constitution were
not valid. The petitioner/Patriarch does not have any power under the
21
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
Knanaya Constitution 1918, and therefore, he cannot take any
disciplinary action against the Metropolitan either by suspending or
issuing any show cause notice in respect of the duties of the Metropol-
itan, done under the administrative side. It is further contended that
once the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the
Constitution of 2002 is not acceptable as per the Judgment of the
Supreme Court in 2017, the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the
Constitution of the Knanaya Samudayam 1918, and the 1934
Constitution. Such being the case, the question of taking action against
the Metropolitan is not sustainable.
15. The 4th respondent appeared and filed counter-affidavit
contending that the original petition is not maintainable in law or on
facts. The petition is misconceived. The petitioner invoked the
superintendence power of the High Court; it shall not be invoked
unless glaring illegal and perversity in the order. The counsel for the
petitioner further contended that, the petitioner ought not to be
22
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
concerned with his temporal authority, as he is the spiritual authority
over the Church. However, the claim of the petitioner that he is the
temporal authority over the Knanaya Archdiocese by relying upon the
order of the Additional District Court, Kottayam, in C.M.A. No.39 of
2020 dated 06.11.2020, the order arising from the interlocutory appli-
cation in the suit filed before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla, in O.S.
No.554 of 2019. The said case was transferred to Munsiff Court,
Kottayam, and the C.M.A. was also transferred to Munsiff Court,
Kottayam, and an order came to be passed, which was decided on
16.11.2020, wherein the interim orders have been vacated. The judg-
ment relied on by the petitioner is not sustainable and not applicable
to the case on hand, invoking the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and Others v. Moran
Mar Marthoma and Another ( 1995 AIR 2001).
16. It is further contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court in
P.M.A. Metropolitan‘s case has held that the Patriarch has only a
23
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
spiritual authority over the Malankara Syrian Jacobite Church in India,
which includes the 4th respondent/Malankara Suryani Knanaya
Samudayam. This was first held in the final Judgment of the Royal
Court of Final Appeal (Travancore), passed on 20.07.1889, holding
that contract Patriarch’s right consisted in ordaining, either directly or
by duly authorized delegates, Metropolitans from time to time, to man-
age the spiritual matters of the local church, sending Morone (holy oil)
to be used in the churches for baptismal and other purposes and in
general supervision over the spiritual government of the Malankara
Church, but it was held to have no authority over the temporal matters.
17. It was held in such judgment that the Patriarch’s supremacy
over the Church in Malabar has extended only to spiritual matters. The
Patriarch or his delegates, when they sojourned in this country,
attended only spiritual affairs of the Church, leaving the management
of the temporal affairs to the local Metropolitan and the Trustees. The
former never interfered with temporal affairs, and where in two or
24
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
three instances, they (the Delegates) tried to have some control over,
or interfere with the temporal affairs of the Metropolitan and the
community resisted them successfully. In the order passed by both the
Court below, has denied the temporal authority over the 4th
respondent/defendant Samudayam and transferred the authority to the
6th respondent in contravention to Ext.P3 Constitution of the 4 th
respondent Samudayam as well as Syrian Orthodox Church
Constitution, which the petitioner is relying upon, but it is not annexed
to the copy of the petition.
18. It is further contended that the averments made in the
petition at paragraphs 3 and 4 are unsustainable. It is also contended
that Ext.P2 Salmooso deals entirely with the spiritual faith of Syrian
Orthodox Church. Therefore, the declaration of faith of the Church has
been sworn by its declarant. Therefore, from Ext.P2, the oath of
allegiance is to the spiritual faith of the Universal Syrian Orthodox
Church and not to the temporal authority of the petitioner. The
25
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
rd
petitioner has no case that the 3 respondent has violated the faith, and
the Syrian Orthodox Church, and therefore, he has not violated his
sworn declaration to the petitioner to uphold the faith of the universal
Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East and on this
ground is not liable to be bound by Ext.P8 bull issued by the petitioner.
19. It is further contended that the intention and purpose of
Ext.P2, Salmooso is clarified in Ext.P2(A), Sustaticon issued by the
predecessor in office of the petitioner herein, the 3rd respondent during
the consecration he has read, signed and submitted the Salmooso,
confessing the holy faith and traditions of our Holy Apostolic Church
and affirming his subordination and obedience to the petitioner and his
successors in office. The petitioner has confessed that his occupation
of the high seat of St. Peter in Apostolic Succession is by the grace and
by the power and authority given by Lord Jesus Christ, which therefore
is strictly spiritual authority as bestowed upon the Supreme Spiritual
authority of the Church. It is further confirmed in Ext.P2 that
26
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
rd
Sustaticon, the 3 respondent is bound by Ext.P2 Salmooso to others
strictly to the spiritual faith of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church
of Antioch. The 3rd respondent is moreover only the 4th Metropolitan
who has signed the Salmooso since the inception of the Malankara
Suryani Knanaya Diocese in 1910. He was immediately preceded by
His Grace More Clemis Abraham, who became Metropolitan of the 4th
Respondent Knanaya Samudayam in 1951 and introduced the
Knanaya Constitution, which has been implemented since 01.01.1952.
It can be seen from Article 85(C) of the Constitution that despite the
then Metropolitan who had also signed the said Salmooso, like his two
predecessors before, descended the office of the Metropolitan after
consecration by the then Patriarch, the names of the petitioner are also
known by name Moran Mor Ignatius Aphrem II. No provision was
ever contemplated in the Constitution prevailing during that period to
remove the Office of the Metropolitan, who was suspended by the
incumbent in the office of the petitioner. Hence, it can be understood
27
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
that the petitioner has limited authority over the Metropolitan of the
Knanaya Archdiocese from the time of the inception of the
Constitution in 1952, and further denied all the averments made by the
petitioner in the petitions.
20. It is further contended that the 5th respondent Association
on 27.08.2024 met and decided the dispute, and on that the bull issued
by the petitioner was denounced by the association and the faith in the
Metropolitan was reiterated, and has held that the bull issued by the
petitioner is not acceptable to the Knanaya community, and after the
discussion, there was 218 members present in the meeting, total 203
supports the resolution in favour of the Metropolitan, and 15 members
against the resolution.
21. It is further contended that the plaintiffs in suits are
members of the 4th responZdent Knanaya Samudayam in their right to
belief and faith, and their right to religion is enriched in Article 25 of
the Constitution of India. Their freedom to manage their religious
28
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
affairs is enshrined in Article 26 of the Constitution of India, and the
4th respondent, Knanaya Samudayam, also contemplates a Metropoli-
tan of the Archdiocese, who is elected by the members of the
Samudayam through 5th respondent Association. Unsettling such an
appointment is invalid and against the Knanaya Community Constitu-
tion, which affects each and every members of the Church, and each
member of the 4th respondent Knanaya Samudayam is entitled to
prosecute their rights as well as illegal orders/Kalpana which infring-
ing upon their rights, therefore, there is no lack of locus standi at the
hands of the petitioner to prosecute the suit, and the plaintiffs have
every right to prosecute the suit as their right to religion as well as
manage religious affairs of the church as are affected.
22. The respondents counsel also contended that there are
some errors in the translation of the consultation produced by the
petitioner, and hence the trial court rightly passed the order, and the 1st
appellate court also did not stay the order of injunction granted by the
29
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
trial court, which do not call for any interference, hence, prayed for
dismissing the petition.
23. The counsel for the other respondents, learned senior
counsel Sri.Sundeep Abraham, appearing for the Metropolitan, also
objected the petition and asserted to the right over the Knanaya
Samudayam and its election made by the association and its members
electing the 2nd respondent as Metropolitan and the Kalpana/bull
issued by the petitioner has also challenged by the 2 nd respondent/
Metropolitan by filing a separate suit, and contented that the petitioner
is the only supreme leader in respect of spirituality but not temporal
management of the affairs of the church and therefore prayed for
dismissing the petition.
24. The counsel for the 4th respondent also supported the
orders passed by the court below and adopted the arguments of the
Senior counsel appearing for the respondents and contended that
respondent No.3/the Malankara Suriyani Knanaya Association, also
30
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
said to be passed the resolution against the bull issued by the Patriarch,
and is not acceptable. The 3rd respondent also stated in the statement
of injunction contenting that the petitioner was ordained him as Met-
ropolitan of Knanaya Archdiocese as a spiritual head of the Universal
Syrian Orthodox Church as prescribed in the Knanaya constitution,
and he has replied to the petitioner to clear the air of misunderstanding
as alleged in the said notice and is responsible for the smooth admin-
istration of the Knanaya Archdiocese consisting exclusively the
members of the fourth respondent association as governed by the
Knanaya constitution. He further contended that he sought
clarification from the Knanaya Committee which is an exclusive body
appointed by the 5th respondent/Knanaya Association, for the day-to-
day administration of the Association, Samudayam, regarding the
allegations raised in the kalpana notice. The Knanaya Committee
provided him with a detailed reply on 26.04.2024, which he has
promptly forwarded to the petitioner with a covering letter on
31
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
30.04.2024.
25. However, the further president initiated by the petitioner on
11.05.2024, has resulted in a series of unwanted and unavoidable
consequences, which have no bearing on him in his religious office.
He further stated that the actions of the petitioners are misplaced,
misdirected, invalid, illegal, and beyond the powers and authority of
the petitioners. Because the petitioner is devoid of temporal jurisdic-
tion over the administration of affairs of the Knanaya Samudayam. It
is clear from Article 85(C) of the Knanaya constitution and also
pleaded, that the similar issue was already decided by the Royal Court
of Travancore, and a suit was decreed in 1889. He further stated that
the Patriarch of Antioch has no independent right to appoint his own
Metropolitan other than through the provisions of Knanaya Constitu-
tion 2003. He also relied upon the judgment of the High Court and the
Supreme Court in Moran Mar Thoma Mathews v. Most Rev. Thomas
Mar D. Metropolitan (2002 (1) KLT 125 (SC). In the said judgment,
32
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
the direction given to elect the Malankara Catholics, and as per the 4th
direction that if the Malankara Association, when convened the
decision by majority that Moran and Mor Besslios Marthoma
Mathews-II, is not the Malankara Metropolitan, the 3rd respondent will
voluntarily resign his office as Malankara Metropolitan. If the
Malankara Association, when convened, decides by majority that he is
the Malankara Metropolitan, all parties will accept the decision as final
and binding, i.e., the decision will not be subject to challenge in any
court or other forum. In this manner, the 5th respondent/Knanaya
Association admits and passes the resolution against the Kalpana is-
sued by the petitioner. He further contended that he did not approach
the Civil Court against the act of impeachment by the petitioner as they
are untenable and non-implementable in India, the Supreme Court has
already held that the office of the petitioner does not have any temporal
authority to take disciplinary action in India without the express
sanction of the Civil Courts, has the right to religious office protected
33
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
by the law. The Civil Courts have jurisdiction to enforce the
disciplinary actions, and there are no religious courts recognized by
the law in India, and further denied all the averments made in the
petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
26. Having heard the arguments of the respective counsel and
the senior counsel for the respondents, and perused the records. The
points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
i) Whether the petitioner/Patriarch is the only spiritual
head of the Knanaya Samudayam, and has no authority to con-
trol the temporal affairs of the Metropolitan, who was elected
by the members of the Malankara Association/Knanaya
Samudayam?
ii) Whether plaintiffs in both the suits have a locus standi
to file the suit before the Civil Court?
iii) Whether the injunction order granted by the Munsiff
Court, Kottayam, in both the suits and I.As liable to be stayed
by this Court?
27. On a careful perusal of the records, which reveals, the
petitioner, being the Patriarch of Antioch issued the Kalpana to the 3rd
respondent, who is a Metropolitan, and the petitioner being the Holy
Patriarch of Antioch, issued the Kalpana No. EI – 28/19 /bull on
34
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
rd
11.05.2024 to the Metropolitan/3 respondent to appear before His
Holiness/petitioner in person or by video conference not later than
16.05.2024, and subsequently, the reply given by the Metropolitan was
not satisfactory. Hence, another Kalpana(order) was issued by the
petitioner by suspending the Metropolitan from all his duties as
Metropolitan as well as his priestly duties. Being aggrieved by the
same, the plaintiff filed two suits before the Trial Court by challenging
the validity of the very Kalpana/disciplinary action taken by the
petitioner and also filed an I.A., for staying the order passed by the
petitioner herein. Accordingly, the Trial Court, by considering the
various judgments of the Supreme Court, and passed the order dated
27.08.2024, by granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff, and the
I.A. filed by the 1st defendant/petitioner has been dismissed, and the
1st defendant/petitioner is restrained from taking any disciplinary ac-
tion against the Metropolitan for carrying out the duties and
35
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
obligations as provided under the Knanaya Constitution and imple-
mentation of the Kalpana/bull EI-30/24 was kept abeyance and
permitted the petitioner to perform spiritual activities in accordance
with Ext.A1 constitution. As against the order of injunction, the
petitioner, being 1st defendant, filed appeal before the First Appellate
Court, District Judge, by filing three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals,
referred as CMAs, and also application for staying the execution order
of the Munsiff Court, Kottayam, by impugned order, the I.As came to
be dismissed. Hence, the petitioner 1st defendant filed these petitions.
28. The main contention of the petitioner in these cases is that
the petitioner is the supreme authority over the Knanaya Samudayam,
and Metropolitan was appointed by him as per the Knanaya
constitution. Once he has having authority to appoint the Metropolitan,
he has having authority to initiate the disciplinary action. Accordingly,
disciplinary action has been initiated against the Metropolitan and
issued a show cause notice. The Metropolitan also appeared through
36
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
V.C., and submitted his explanation, accepting his mistakes, and
finally, the petitioner being the Supreme Head of the Knanaya
Samudayam. Antioch Church issued the Kalpana by suspending the
Metropolitan from discharging his duties as Metropolitan. It is further
contended by the petitioner that the issuance of a show cause notice to
the Metropolitan and the suspension of the Metropolitan by the
petitioner was not challenged by the very Metropolitan by filing any
suit. But the plaintiffs who are the members of the association or
Knanaya Community has been filed the suits has no locus standi to
file the suits against the petitioner. Therefore, both the suits are not
maintainable. The plaintiff has no locus standi. Therefore, the question
of granting any injunction does not arise.
29. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that as per
the Knanaya constitution, the petitioners have the authority to take the
use of disciplinary authority, therefore, until the final judgment in the
Civil Court, the injunction cannot be granted as against the order
37
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
issued by the Kalpana, issued by the petitioner. Hence, the injunction
granted by the Trial Court is going to be stayed until passing decision
by the District Judge in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals; therefore,
prayed for staying the order of injunction.
30. Before adverting to the controversy in respect of passing
the order, i.e., Kalpana/bull by the powers of the petitioner, it is
necessary to consider the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
various cases in respect of similar disputes arising between the
Knanaya Samudayam, Metropolitan and Patriarch.
31. Learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respond-
ent/plaintiff mainly relied upon three judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported in (1958 SCC Online (SC) 136), the Consti-
tution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira and Others (AIR 1959
SC 31); in the case of Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and Others v.
Moran Mar Marthoma and Another (1995 Supp (4) SCC 286), and
38
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
K.S. Varghese and Others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian
Orthodox Church and Others (2017) 15 SCC 333). In the above three
judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the Constitu-
tion’s pursuance to the parties in the said suit.
32. In Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos case, the Constitution
Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reported in (AIR 1959 SC 31
: 1958 SCC OnLine SC 136), the issue was raised, whether the
Patriarch of Antioch, the Ecclesiastical head of the Malankara Jacobite
Syrian church is the only Supreme Spiritual Head and the finding was
shown in the said judgment that the Patriarch had only a power of
general supervision over the spiritual government of the church, but
had no right to interfere with the internal administration of the church
in spiritual matters which vested only in the Metropolitan and that
Patriarch has no authority, jurisdiction, control, supervision or concern
over the temporalities of Archdiocese of Malankara from the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, except the findings of the trial court/a District Judge
39
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
holding that the pattern is only a power of general supervision over the
spiritual Government of the Church and no right to interfere in the
internal administration of the Church.
33. In a subsequent case, the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.M.A.
Metropolitan‘s case (supra), in para 160 to 163, held as follows:
160. Before we conclude, it is necessary to deal with the position
of the above churches. The Division Bench of the High Court has dealt
with them under points 23, 24, 25 and 26 formulated by it. So far as Sim-
hasanam Churches, Evangelical Association of the East and St. Anthony’s
Church, Mangalore are concerned, the Division Bench has dismissed the
suits, viz., OS Nos. 5, 6 and 4 of 1979, insofar as they related to the above
churches agreeing with the findings and the decree of the learned Single
Judge in that behalf. We see no grounds to depart from the concurrent
findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. We
affirm their judgment and decree in this behalf. So far as Knanaya
Samudayam is concerned, while the learned Single Judge had dismissed
OS No. 4 of 1979 with respect to this defendant (D-19) subject to the dec-
laration that Knanaya Sabha is part of Malankara Church, the Division
Bench has modified the decree in the following terms:
“Decree is granted declaring that Catholicos is the
spiritual superior of Knanaya community and Knanaya Met-
ropolitan and in regard to temporal matters as long as the par-
ties do not harmonise the provisions of the Knanaya Constitu-
tion and the Constitution of the Malankara Sabha, the latter
can be implemented with reference to Knanaya diocese and
parishes only subject to the terms of the Knanaya Constitu-
tion.”
161. The Division Bench has arrived at its finding regarding the
Knanaya Church being a part of Malankara Church and the Knanaya
Metropolitan being subject to the spiritual superior of the Catholicos on
the basis of the following facts mainly, apart from other material, viz., (a)
40
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
in the Manarcadu meeting of the Malankara Association (after the judg-
ment of the High Court in Samudayam suit declaring Catholicos group as
heretics) convened pursuant to the directions of the High Court, not only
the Knanaya Churches participated therein but the Knanaya Metropoli-
tan, Mar Clemis, was elected as the Malankara Metropolitan: and (b) af-
ter the judgment of this Court in Moran Mar Basselios, Knanaya Churches
participated in the meetings of the Malankara Association held in 1959,
1962, 1965 and 1970 as would be evident from Exs. A-47(h), A-50(h) and
A-53(h). Leading members of the Knanaya community were elected as
members of the Managing Committee of the Malankara Association.
162. The above facts were placed against the following facts ap-
pearing in favour of the Knanaya Church, viz.,
(i) in the plaint, there was no specific prayer with respect to the
Knanaya Church. Because Knanaya Churches were also listed in the list
of Parish Churches appended to the plaint, the Knanaya Samudayam ap-
plied for impleading itself as a defendant to the suit and was impleaded as
D-19. Only in response to the averments made in written statement of D-
19, did the plaintiffs aver facts on the basis of which they claimed that
Knanaya Churches are part of Malankara Association and subject to the
1934 Constitution;
(ii) the material established that Knanaya Churches had adopted
their own Constitution in 1912 (which was brought into force in 1918),
that they had indeed constituted a Committee known as “Knanaya Com-
mittee” even in 1882, which was later designated as “Knanaya Associa-
tion” and that throughout these Churches stood by the Patriarch and its
Metropolitans were always ordained by Patriarch alone;
(iii) the proceedings of the Malankara Episcopal Synod meetings
held during the period 12-1-1959 to 7-6-1960, which indicate certain dis-
cussions between the Malankara Church and Knanaya Church with re-
spect to relationship between them. A Committee was appointed to submit
a report in that behalf to the Synod;
(iv) the tradition relating to the origin of Knanaya Committee in
India and their zealous concern throughout to maintain and retain their
separate ethnic identity and beliefs.
163. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant (D-19) and
the respondents and perusing their written submissions, we are of the
opinion that the decree of the Division Bench has to be affirmed but with
certain modification. The modification is called for for the reason that
when a particular people say that they believe in the spiritual superiority
41
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
of the Patriarch and that it is an article of faith with them, the Court can-
not say “no; your spiritual superior is the Catholicos”. The guarantee of
Article 25 of the Constitution has also got to be kept in view. The decree
of the Division Bench makes no difference to the Patriarch. It only says
that Catholicos is declared to be the spiritual superior of the Knanaya
community. Then it says that in temporal matters, the 1934 Constitution
of Malankara Association can be implemented subject to the Knanaya
Constitution only until both the Constitutions are reconciled. In all the
facts and circumstances of the case, it would be enough to declare that by
their acts and conduct, D-19 has accepted that they are an integral unit
within the Malankara Church and that, therefore, the 1934 Constitution
of the Malankara Church shall govern them but subject to their own
Knanaya Constitution until such time the Knanaya Church Samudayam
decides otherwise.
34. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the 1934
Constitution of Malankara Church has been upheld and is to be imple-
mented subject to the Knanaya Constitution 1918. In another judgment
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S. Varghese case, once again in
similar circumstances considered the 1995 judgment and assailed at
paragraph 71, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 1995 case is binding precedent final
and conclusive, and in paragraphs 73, 74, and 78 as held as follows:
73. The learned Senior Counsel also urged that as per Section 35
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the declaration made by this Court is
binding only on the parties to the suit or persons claiming through them
respectively. The appellants were not parties to the suit nor they are
42OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
claiming through the parties therein. Relying on Razia Begum v. Sa-
hebzadi Anwar Begum, it was urged that the declaration operates only
in persona. We are unable to accept the submission. The relief which
was sought in the main suit and led to the 1995 judgment was to declare
the Malankara Church to be episcopal in character and is not a union
or federation of autonomous Church units and is governed in its admin-
istration by the Constitution of the Malankara Church. It was also
prayed that Defendants 1 to 3 has no competence to ordain priests and
deacons for Malankara Church and that they were not legally conse-
crated Metropolitans of the Malankara Church and Defendants 4 to 8
were not legally ordained priests or deacons of the Malankara Church.
Prayer was also made to declare that any priest who refuses to recog-
nise the authority of the first plaintiff and other Metropolitans under
him was not entitled to administer in any of the Malankara Churches or
its institutions. Permanent prohibitory injunction was claimed against
Defendants 1 to 3 from ordaining priests or deacons or performing any
other sacraments, service, etc. for the Malankara Church or its institu-
tions. The Division Bench had decreed the main suit. In the 1995 judg-
ment this Court referring to the year 1654 events, observed that the au-
thority of the Patriarch extended only to spiritual affairs but not to the
temporal affairs of theMalankara Church. There was the revival of Ca-
tholicate in 1912 by Patriarch Abdul Messiah, and that brought a qual-
itative change in the situation. A-14, the Kalpana was issued which fact
was not disputed by the Patriarch group. and A-13 which was preceded
by A-14 empowered the Catholicos to ordain Metropolitans and other
officials of the Church in accordance with the canons of the Church and
also to consecrate Holy Moron. The powers of consecrating Holy
Morone that vested in the Patriarch, came to be vested in the Catholicos
by the Patriarch himself.
74. The third Catholicos was elected as the Malankara Metro-
politan and thus the powers of both were concentrated in one person i.e.
the spiritual and temporal powers. This Court also observed that the
Patriarch in the year 1972 could not have exercised the power of ap-
pointment of getting ordaining the priests and deacons through his del-
egate as observed in para 134 of the 1995 judgment. This Court clearly
held that even if it is held that by Kalpanas Exts. A-13 and A-14 the
Patriarch is not denuded of the powers delegated by him to the Cathol-
icos, he could not have unilaterally exercised those powers which were
43
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
delegated and he could have exercised those powers thereafter in con-
sultation with the Catholicos and the Malankara Sabha (Association)
and of course in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. This Court also
held that it was necessary for the reason (i) to avoid creating parallel
authorities leading to conflict and confusion, and (ii) the acceptance by
the local people. Thus this Court clearly held that the Patriarch could
not have purported to exercise unilaterally the powers delegated by him
to the Catholicos under A-14.
78. The aforesaid findings and the declaration in the aforesaid
decree that was passed in the 1995 judgment extracted above, in a rep-
resentative suit, is binding. This Court in R. Venugopala Naidu v. Ven-
katarayulu Naidu Charities has dealt with the suit under Section 92 and
Order 1 Rule 8 CPC and it was held that such a suit is the representative
action of a large number of persons who have a common interest. The
suit binds not only the parties named in the suit but all those who are
interested in the trust. It is for that reason Explanation 6 to Section 11
CPC constructively bars by res judicata the entire body of interested
persons from reagitating the matters directly in issue in an earlier suit
under Section 92 CPC. This Court has laid down thus: (SCC pp. 360-
61, para 11)
“11. It is not necessary to go into the finding of the
High Court that two of the appellants being Muslims can
have no interest in the trust as the other two appellants claim
to be the beneficiaries of the trust and their claim has not
been negatived. Moreover, the trust has been constituted to
perform not only charities of a religious nature but also
charities of a secular nature such as providing for drinking
water and food for the general public without reference to
caste or religion.”
Section 11 read with Explanation 6 is extracted hereunder:
“11. Res judicata. No court shall try any suit or issue
in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has
been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit be-
tween the same parties, or between parties under whom they
or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a
court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in
which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has
been heard and finally decided by such court.
44
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
* * *
Explanation VI. Where persons litigate bona fide in
respect of public right or of a private right claimed in com-
mon for themselves and others, all persons interested in
such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed
to claim under the persons so litigating.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court further held at paragraph 228 as under:
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 bind-
ing and operates as res judicata with respect to the matters it has de-
cided, in the wake of the provisions of Order 1 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 un-
der Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. It is also not permis-
sible 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 Catholi-
cos. 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 sub-
ject 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 can-
not interfere in the governance of parish churches by appointing Vicar,
45
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
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 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 Constitu-
tion, the parishioners though may individually leave the Church, they
are not permitted to take the movable or immovable properties out of
the ambit of the 1934 Constitution without the approval of the Church
hierarchy.
228.9. The spiritual power of Patriarch has been set up by the appel-
lants 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 au-
thorities in the Church hierarchy. The Patriarch, thus, cannot be per-
mitted to exercise the power in violation of the 1934 Constitution to cre-
ate 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 vi-
olated. It was only in the alternative this Court held in the 1995 judg-
ment 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 suprem-
acy of the 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
46
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
internal matters and elect their own Bishops in terms of the said Con-
stitution.
228.14. Appointment of Vicar is a secular matter. There is no violation
of any of the rights encompassed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Con-
stitution 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. Udampadies 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
the Malankara Church.
228.16. The functioning of the Church is based upon the division of re-
sponsibilities at various levels and cannot be usurped by a single indi-
vidual 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 cemetery 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 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
47
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
the management and other powers by raising such disputes as to su-
premacy 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 govern-
ment 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 man-
aged 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 prop-
erty. No group f or denomination by majority or otherwise can take
away the management or the property as that would virtually tanta-
mount 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 9 Constitution.
228.21. The Udampadies of 1890 and 1913 are with respect to admin-
istration 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 Udampadies for the reasons already
48
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
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 the 2002 Constitution is the result of illegal
and void exercise. It cannot be recognised and the parallel system cre-
ated 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 Man-
nathoor Church matter, to adopt the procedure once again of repre-
sentative suit under Order 1 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 manage-
ment of the parish churches, as such there is no necessity of framing a
scheme under Section 92 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 sys-
tems 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 ac-
cepted.
35. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that, 2002
Constitution is illegal and void, and it cannot be recognized, and
parallel system created there under for the administration of the parish
49
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
churches of Malankara Church, cannot hold the field and it has to be
administered under the 1934 Constitution. The Hon’ble Apex Court
has categorically held that in the 1995 Judgment, the 1934
Constitution should be adopted subject to the Knanaya Constitution
adopted in 1912, which came into force in 1918.
36. It is well settled by the Apex Court and recognize the
Knanaya Constitution adopted by the Knanaya Community/Associa-
tion. The Malankara Suryani Knanaya Samudaya Constitution is
produced before this Court (the translated version of the Knanaya
Constitution produced by the petitioner has some defects in the trans-
lation, hence not relied).
37. Coming to the Kalpana/Bull, issued by the petitioner,
which reveals that, the Kalpana, i.e., the show cause notice was issued
by exercising the power under Article 59(a) of the Church Constitu-
tion. The learned counsel for the petitioner contented that the
petitioner exercised the power under such constitution 2002, therefore,
50
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
nd
once the said Metropolitan/2 defendant accepted the supremacy of
the 1st petitioner/His Holiness, he has appeared in the V.C., has sent
reply and subsequently on 16.5.2024, another Kalpana issued by sus-
pending the 2nd defendant/Metropolitan. On the other hand, learned
senior counsel for the 1st respondent is strenuously contented that there
is no power under the Knanaya constitution to the petitioner, and also
the Knanaya Constitution, 1918 has been considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the 1995 Judgment, while upholding the 1934 Con-
stitution. Such being the case, the 1918 Constitution, which was
amended in the year 2003, where there is no such power to the
petitioner/patriarch for taking any disciplinary action against the
Metropolitan over the Temporal affairs of the churches.
38. On the other hand, the petitioner’s counsel, as well as the
other respondents who are supporting the petitioner and are in charge
of the Metropolitan, were said to be appointed by the petitioner, as well
as by the petitioner’s counsel. Though the Metropolitan was elected by
51
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
the Knanaya Samudayam, as per 83(C) of the Constitution, the elected
priest and Metropolitan shall be appointed by the Patriarch of Antioch
for Knanaya Samudayam. Therefore, it is contended that once the
Patriarch has having power to appoint the Metropolitan and also has
the power to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner. In sup-
port of the contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner also re-
lied upon Section 16 of the General Classes Act. On a perusal of Ar-
ticle 83 (C) of the Knanaya Constitution, amended in 2003, wherein it
reveals that after the election made by the Knanaya Association, the
Patriarch shall appoint the Metropolitan/Asst. Metropolitan,
canonically. The said controversy has already been cleared by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1995 and 2017 Judgments that the Patriarch
is having only power as a spiritual head and does not have any control
over the temporal affairs of the Metropolitan. However, the
Constitution relied on by the petitioner is 2002 Church Constitution
for taking action against the defendant is not sustainable.
52
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
39. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent
has brought to the notice that after passing the Judgment by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 1995, by upholding the 1934
Constitution and Knanaya Constitution 1912/1918. The petitioner cre-
ated a new Constitution, i.e., the Constitution of the Syrian Orthodox
Church Constitution in 2002. Therefore, Article 59(A) exercised by
the petitioner is required to be considered by the Civil Court during
the trial. The petitioner amended the constitution to overcome the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Though Section 16 of the
General Clauses Act defines that the power of the authority who is
having power to appoint also has the power to take disciplinary action.
But on a perusal of the Knanaya Constitution produced by the learned
counsel for the respondent along with the counter, it is not mentioned
anywhere in the Constitution for taking any disciplinary action by the
Patriarch against the Metropolitan. However, it has mentioned only the
53
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
Asst. Metropolitan or a priest can be made in charge of the Metropol-
itan only in case the Metropolitan dies or goes on long leave due to
illness. It is worth to mention about Article 85(C) of the Knanaya Con-
stitution, whether it empowers when a Metropolitan passes away,
becomes seriously ill or resents from the office, arrangements must be
made as outlined in Clause 85(C), wherein, if there is any Assistant
Metropolitan or Metropolitan Senior among them, that person shall be
assigned the duties and respond to the Asst.Metropolitan, otherwise
administrated, elected according to Clause 86, shall assume those
responsibilities. As per Article 86, when the Metropolitan passes away,
or seriously ill, or resigns from the office, then the only throne of An-
tioch is to authorise the Administrator and Deputy Metropolitan of
Malankara to perform sacramental functions. Therefore, there is a
controversy with respect to exercising power by the Patriarchs by
adopting the church constitution of 2002. The Knanaya Constitution,
1918 not empower any such right to the Patriarchs for taking any
54
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
disciplinary action against the Metropolitan. Therefore, until the
full-fledged trial, the power of the Patriarch is established by the 1 st
defendant in the suit. Therefore, taking into consideration the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in 1958, 1995, and 2017,
the 1934 Constitution and Knanaya Constitution, 1918 have already
been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where there is no power
assigned to the petitioner/ Patriarch for taking any disciplinary action.
Section 16 of the General Clause Act would apply only to the
Government Authorities or State Government, or Central Government
legislations, but not to the Knanaya Constitution, which applies the
private persons/private offices. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner’s counsel that the Patriarchs have the power to initiate the
disciplinary action, as they have the power to appoint the Metropoli-
tan, cannot be acceptable. Since the Metropolitan has been elected by
the Association by way of election and only approved by the Patriarch
His Holiness as ‘Kaivappu’, he is only a spiritual head, and it cannot
55
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
be said that he has temporal control over the Metropolitan at this stage.
40. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Trial Court rightly granted injunction against the petitioner.
Though it is contented, the injunction has been granted only after
passing the order by suspending the Metropolitan or 2nd defendant, but
the suit was filed, and subsequent to the filing of the suit, the order
has been passed by the Patriarch by suspending the Metropolitan.
Therefore, the Trial Court granted injunction against the initiation of
disciplinary proceedings by issuing show cause notice suspending the
same has been kept abeyance by the Trial Court.
41. As regards the locus standi of the petitioner, it is contended
that the respondent No.1 in both the suits, i.e., the plaintiff in both the
suits has no locus standi. Whereas, the plaintiff are the members of the
Knanaya Samudayam and they are the members of the Malankara
Association/Church and they have elected the Metropolitan through
the association, any action against the Metropolitan is directly affects
56
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the suits under Order
1 Rule 8 of CPC, and the representative suit. The representative suit
has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1958 Judgment in
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos case, and the same was also
considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1995 in P.M.A Metropol-
itan case. Therefore, any action taken against the Metropolitan is
directly affected by the members of the Malankara /Knanaya
Association. Therefore, the plaintiffs have locus standi to file the suit
against the petitioner.
42. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
of the Coordinate Bench of this court in O.P.(C) No.7096 of 2020,
wherein the District Judge was held that the Patriarch was supreme
over the administration by appointing the Metropolitan and the said
order was upheld by the Supreme Court in S.L.P, the Hon’ble Su-
preme Court not interfered in the order on the ground that the order
was only interlocutory. I have perused the said judgment, passed by
57
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan and Others case,
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos case, and K.S.Varghese and others
case, which judgments are binding nature. Therefore, given the facts
and circumstances of the case, the same cannot be relied upon by this
court.
43. During the pendency of the petition, it is also brought to
notice, the very Metropolitan/defendant No.2 in the suit also filed a
separate suit in O.S.No.193 of 2025, wherein he challenged the very
Kalpana issued by the petitioner. The said suit is also pending on the
same Munsiff Court, Kottayam, and notice has been issued to the
petitioner, such being the case. The Trial Court rightly considered the
application and granted injunction as against the petitioner.
The first appellate court, while hearing the arguments and I.A., for
staying the order under Order 41, Rule 5 of CPC, elaborately
considered the arguments addressed by both sides and dismissed the
application; therefore, three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are still
58
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
pending. Now it is almost three suits; two suits filed by the members
of the Knanaya Samudayam and one suit by the very 2 nd defend-
ant/Metropolitan himself. Such being the case, it is not a fit case for
staying the order of injunction granted by the trial court pending
consideration of the suit. As it is already discussed above, the suit
under Section 9 of CPC is maintainable, the order of the Patriarch can
be challenged before the Civil Court by filing the suit, until reading
the evidence by the parties, the trial court once again consider the
Church Constitution 2002, which was empowering the petitioner /
Patriarch for initiating the disciplinary action against the Metropolitan,
which was not provided in the 1918 Knanaya Constitution and 1934
Constitution. Such being the case, the trial court is required to consider
the dispute during the trial, and it requires a full-fledged trial; till then,
the Kalpana issued by the petitioner is required to be stayed or kept in
abeyance. Therefore, the same cannot be set aside by this court, and
the appellate court/ District Judge, rightly dismissed the I.A., filed by
59
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
the petitioner, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, which do not call for
any interference.
Accordingly, all the three Original Petitions (C) are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
K. NATARAJAN,
JUDGE
SS
60
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 825/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2025 OF THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-V, KOTTAYAM IN I.A. NO.
2 OF 2024 IN C.M.A. NO.56/2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT NUMBERED AS OS NO. 264/2024
BEFORE THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.08.2024 IN
IA NO.2 OF 2024 IN OS NO. 206 OF 2024 BEFORE THE
COURT OF MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY CASE STATUS IN O.S. NO. 264
OF 2024 FOR THE DATE 27.08.2024 WHICH SHOWS THAT
EXHIBIT P3 ORDER WAS APPLIED TO I.A. NO. 1 OF 2024
IN O.S. 264 OF 2024
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CMA NO. 56 OF 2024
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT OF THE
DISTRICT JUDGE, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED AS IA NO.2 OF
2024 IN CMA NO. 56 OF 2024 BEFORE THE COURT OF THE
DISTRICT JUDGE, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P5 3. TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED
27.03.2025 SERVING A COPY OF THE OP(C) AND
CONNECTED PAPERS ON ADVOCATE SMITHA MOHAN WITH
THEIR ENDORSEMENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 27.03.2025
SERVING A COPY OF THE OP(C) AND CONNECTED PAPERS
ADVOCATE JOSEPH ABRAHAM AND ADVOCATE MC SKARIA,
WITH THEIR ENDORSEMENTS
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 20.02.2025
SERVING A COPY OF THE OP(C) AND CONNECTED PAPERS
ON ADVOCATES PAUL JACOB, SUNDEEP ABRAHAM, JACOB P.
ALEX AND KURUVILLA JACOB, WITH THEIR ENDORSEMENT
61
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 826/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2025 OF THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-V, KOTTAYAM IN I.A. NO.
2 OF 2024 IN C.M.A. NO.59/2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 206/2024 FILED
BY THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF
THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 11 OF 2024 IN OS NO. 206/2024
BEFORE THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF’, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.08.2024 IN
IA NO.2 OF 2024 IN OS NO. 206 OF 2024 BEFORE THE
COURT OF MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CMA NO. 59 OF 2024
BEFORE THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED AS IA NO.2 OF
2024 IN CMA NO. 59 OF 2024
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 27.03.2025
SERVING A COPY OF THE OP(C) AND CONNECTED PAPERS
ON ADVOCATE M.C. SKARIAH AND ADVOCATE JOSEPH
ABRAHAM, WITH THEIR ENDORSEMENTS
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 27.03.2025
SERVING A COPY OF THE OP(C) AND CONNECTED PAPERS
ON ADVOCATES PAUL JACOB, SUNDEEP ABRAHAM, JACOB P.
ALEX AND KURUVILLA JACOB, WITH THEIR ENDORSEMENTS
62
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 819/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 04.03.2025 OF THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-V, KOTTAYAM IN I.A. NO.
2 OF 204 IN C.M.A. NO.54/2024 AND CONNECTED CMAS
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHALMOOTHO/SALMOOSO DATED
15.01.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE
THE THEN PATRIARCH
Exhibit P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SUSTHATHIKOON DATED 15.01.2004
ISSUED BY THE PATRIARCH TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE 2003 KNANAYA CONSTITUTION DATED
01.11.2003
Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED 2013 KNANAYA
CONSTITUTION/BYE LAW DATED 01.11.2014
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2020 IN CMA
NO. 39 OF 2020 BEFORE THE COURT OF ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE -I, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2022 IN OPC
NO. 1796 OF 2020 BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT
Exhibit P4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2022 IN SLP
4449/2022 BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE KALPANA NO. EL 19/24 DATED
17.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE KALPANA NO. 28/24 DATED 11.05.2024
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE KALPANA NO. 29/24 DATED 11.05.2024
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE KALPANA NO. EL 30/24 DATED
17.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER SUSPENDING THE
3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE KALPANA NO. EL 31/24 DATED
18.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO MOR
GREGORIOS KURIAKOSE, METROPOLITAN
Exhibit P5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE KALPANA NO. 15/24 DATED 18.05.2024
ISSUED BY MOR GREGORIOS KURIAKOSE, METROPOLITAN
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 206/2024 FILED
BY THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF
THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM
INJUNCTION FILED AS IA NO. 2 OF 2024 IN OS NO.
63
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
206/2024 BEFORE THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF’,
KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 24.05.2024 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN/ 1ST RESPONDENT IN IA NO.
2 OF 2024 IN OS NO. 206/2024
Exhibit P7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED MAY 2024 FILED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN/ 2ND RESPONDENT IN IA
NO. 2 OF 2024 IN OS NO. 206/2024
Exhibit P7(c) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 30.05.2024
JOINTLY FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS NOS. 4 & 5 HEREIN
/ 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS IN IA NO. 2 OF 2024 IN
OS NO. 206/2024
Exhibit P7(d) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 29.06.2024
JOINTLY FILED BY THE 6TH AND 7TH RESPONDENTS / 5TH
AND 6TH RESPONDENTS IN IA NO. 2 OF 2024 IN OS NO.
206/2024
Exhibit P7(e) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 29.06.2024 FILED
BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT HEREIN / 7TH RESPONDENT IN
IA NO. 2 OF 2024 IN OS NO. 206/2024
Exhibit P7(f) TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES DATED 31.07.2024
FILED BBY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT
KOTTAYAM IN IN IA NO. 2 OF 2024 IN OS NO. 206/2024
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 11 OF 2024 IN OS NO. 206/2024
DATED 28.05.2024 BEFORE THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF’,
KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE KALPANA BEARING NO. EI 82/19 DATED
13.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN
OP(C) NO. 1761 OF 2015 DATED 15.03.2016
Exhibit P10(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT
DATED 16.11.2016 IN OP(C) NO. 1773 OF 2016
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.08.2024 IN
IA NO.2 OF 2024 IN OS NO. 206 OF 2024 BEFORE THE
COURT OF MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CMA NO. 54/2024
BEFORE THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P12(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED AS IA NO.2 OF
2024 IN CMA NO. 54/2024 BEFORE THE COURT OF THE
DISTRICT JUDGE, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P12(b) TRUE COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTES FILED BY THE PETITIONER
DATED 04.02.2025 IN I.A. NO. 2 OF 2024 IN CMA NO.
54/2024 BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P12(c) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTES
DEALING WITH THE FACTS OF THE MATTER DATED
64
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
19.11.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 27.03.2025
SERVING A COPY OF THE OP(C) AND CONNECTED PAPERS
ON ADVOCATE M.C. SKARIAH AND ADVOCATE JOSEPH
ABRAHAM, WITH THEIR ENDORSEMENTS
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 27.03.2025
SERVING A COPY OF THE OP(C) AND CONNECTED PAPERS
ON ADVOCATES PAUL JACOB, SUNDEEP ABRAHAM, JACOB P.
ALEX AND KURUVILLA JACOB, WITH THEIR ENDORSEMENT
Exhibit P3 Translation of Exhibit P3
Exhibit P3(a) Translation of Exhibit P3(a)
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R4(a) True copy of the official Translation of the
Constitution of the Malankara Suriyani Knanaya
Samudayam
Exhibit R3(1) Plaint filed by the 3rd Respondent in Court of
Additional Munsiff at Kottayam
Exhibit R3(2) Interlocutory Application IA 1 of 2025 filed by
the 3rd Respondent in OS 193 of 2025 in the court
of the Additional Munsiff at Kottayam
Case status report Case status in Munsiff Court to clarify the nature
of the IA 1/2025 in OS 193/25 in the court of the
Additional Munsiff at Kottayam
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 True copy of the Constitution of the Syriac
Orthodox Church as amended and approved by the Holy
Synod on September 22-26, 1996
Annexure 2 Typed copy of the relevant portion of the
Constitution of the Syriac Orthodox Church as
amended and approved by the Holy Synod on September
22-26, 1996
Annexure 3 True copy of reply dated 26.04.2024 of the 4th
Respondent to the issues raised by the Patriarch
of Antioch
Annexure 4 True copy of the written statement dated
06.02.2013 filed by the 3rd Respondent herein in
O.S. 51 of 2012 who is arrayed as the 2nd Defendant
in O.S. 51 of 2012
Annexure 5 Typed copy of the written statement dated
06.02.2013 filed by the 3rd Respondent herein in
O.S. 51 of 2012 who is arrayed as the 2nd Defendant
in O.S. 51 of 2012
65
OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025
2025:KER:51096
Annexure 6 True copy of the Kalpana No. 31/13 dated 11.03.2013
issued by the 3rd Respondent accepting the
authority of the Petitioner
Annexure 7 Typed copy of the Kalpana No. 31/13 dated
11.03.2013 issued by the 3rd Respondent
Annexure 1 True copy of the reply dated 30.04.2024 sent by
the 3rd Respondent to Exhibit P5 Bull
Annexure 2 True copy of the communication from the 3rd
Respondent regarding Exhibit P5 series Bulls
issued by the Patriarch, which was also produced
before the trial court as Exhibit B3