1  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

 CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S). 7115-7116 OF 2019  

(ARISING FROM SLP(C) Nos.20661-20662 OF 2019)  

 FR. ISSAC MATTAMMEL COR-EPISCOPA                 ..APPELLANT(S)  

 VERSUS  

ST. MARY’S ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH & ORS.   ..RESPONDENT(S)    

            O R D E R    

1. Leave granted.  

2. It passes comprehension that how the judge has passed the  

impugned interim order which runs expressly contrary to the decision of  

this Court in K.S. Verghese v. St. Peters & St. Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church  

& Ors., (2017) 15 SCC 333.  This Court has passed several judgments and  

orders to the effect that no such interference can be made by any court  

after the decision has been rendered by this Court in a representative suit  

which is binding on all concerned and it is the constitutional duty of all  

concerned to obey the judgment and order of this Court.  As per Article 141  

of the Constitution of India, the law declared by this Court is binding on all  

courts and under Article 144, civil and judicial authorities within the  

territory of India shall act in aid of Supreme Court.  Kerala being Indian  

Territory all concerned are bound to act accordingly.  We have intended  

peace to come in Church but due to such orders passed in contravention of  

law laid down by this Court law can never be obeyed.  This amount to a  

violation of judgment and order.  The High Court has passed an interim  

order in violation of the judgments and orders passed by this Court.  We

2  

are not able to understand what kind of judicial discipline is reflected while  

passing the impugned order, which should not have been passed at all.  We  

restrain all the Civil Courts and the High Court in Kerala not to pass any  

order in violation of the mandate of this Court's decision in K.S. Varghese  

(supra).  

3. The appeal arises out of the suit, pending before the High Court, is  

disposed of in terms of the decision passed by this Court in K.S. Varghese  

(supra) as there is no scope left for further litigation on the issue. The High  

Court has no right to tinker with the judgment and order passed by this  

Court which is binding and the judicial propriety has to be maintained at  

all costs.  There is no scope for further litigation in the matter which we  

have concluded.  We direct the Courts to decide all pending matters  

following the aforesaid decision which has been affirmed thereafter by  

umpteen number of times.     

4. The binding effect of the representative suit has been considered  

before this Court in K.S. Verghese (supra) thus:  

“78. The aforesaid findings and the declaration in the aforesaid decree  

that was passed in the 1995 judgment4 extracted above, in a  

representative suit, is binding. This Court in R. Venugopala Naidu v.  

Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities 1989 Supp (2) SCC 356 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 agitating 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

3  

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 between 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.  

* *  *  

Explanation VI.—Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of  

public right or of a private right claimed in common 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.”  

79. Order 1 Rule 8 is an exception to the general rule that all persons  

interested in the suit are to be made parties thereto. The object for  

which the provision is enacted is to provide an exception to the ordinary  

procedure in a case where common rights of community or members of  

such association or large section are involved. It will be practically  

difficult to institute the suit under the ordinary procedure by impleading  

every person in which every individual has to maintain account by a  

separate suit and to avoid numerous suits being filed for a decision on  

the common question. Order 1 Rule 8 had been enacted so as to  

simplify the procedure. In case parties have bona fide litigated the  

question and there had been no collusion in such a suit, the decision  

would bind the others. The rule entitles one party to represent many and  

the action is maintainable without joinder of other parties. Order 1 Rule  

8 presupposes that there are numerous persons having the same interest.  

One or more such persons with permission of the court may sue or be  

sued or may defend such suit on behalf of the persons so interested. In  

such a case notice has to be given as per Order 1 Rule 8(2) by way of  

public advertisement and then any person on whose behalf or whose  

benefit the suit is instituted or defended has a right to apply to the court  

to be made a party to such a suit. It is provided in Order 1 Rule 8(6) that  

the decree in a suit under this rule shall be binding on all the persons on  

whose behalf or for whose benefit the suit is instituted or defended, as  

the case may be. As per the mandate of Order 1 Rule 8(6), the finding  

that was recorded in the earlier suit that was decided in 19587 as well as  

in 19954 is binding insofar as the questions decided in a representative  

character. The provision of Explanation 6 to Section 11 applies to such  

a suit as held in Kumaravelu Chettiar v. Ramaswami Ayyar1. This Court  

has decided the issue in the 1995 suit to the extent that the parties were  

 1 1933 SCC OnLine PC 33

4  

having the common interest as contemplated in Order 1 Rule 8 and left  

open issues with respect to temporal matters in the absence of parish  

churches. To that extent only, we can decide the issues and other issues  

have to be taken as barred by the principle of res judicata as per  

Explanation 6 to Section 11 and Order 1 Rule 8 CPC.”    

5. This Court K.S. Verghese (Supra) has ultimately held 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 judgment2 is completely in tune with the  

judgment. There is no conflict between the judgment and the decree.  

228.3. The 1995 judgment arising out of the representative suit is  

binding and operates as res judicata with respect to the matters it has  

decided, in the wake of 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  

under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. It is also not  

permissible to create a parallel system of management in the Churches  

under the guise of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch.  

228.5. The Primate of Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is  

Catholicos. He enjoys spiritual powers as well, as the Malankara  

Metropolitan. Malankara Metropolitan has the prime jurisdiction  

regarding temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administration of  

Malankara Church subject to the riders provided in the 1934  

Constitution.  

228.6. Full effect has to be given to the finding that the spiritual power  

of the Patriarch has reached to a vanishing point. Consequently, he  

cannot interfere in the governance of parish churches by appointing  

Vicar, priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests), etc. and thereby cannot  

create a parallel system of administration. The appointment has to be  

made as per the power conferred under the 1934 Constitution on the  

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  

 2 Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286

5  

move Church out of the Malankara Church. Once a trust is always a  

trust.  

228.8. When the Church has been created and is for the benefit of the  

beneficiaries, it is not open for the beneficiaries, even by a majority, to  

usurp its property or management. The Malankara Church is in the form  

of a trust in which, its properties have vested. As per the 1934  

Constitution, the parishioners though may individually leave the  

Church, they are not permitted to take the movable or immovable  

properties out of the ambit of the 1934 Constitution without the  

approval of the Church hierarchy.  

228.9. The spiritual power of Patriarch has been set up by the appellants  

clearly in order to violate the mandate of the 1995 judgment of this  

Court which is binding on the Patriarch, Catholicos and all concerned.  

228.10. As per the historical background and the practices which have  

been noted, the Patriarch is not to exercise the power to appoint Vicar,  

priests, Deacons, Prelates, etc. Such powers are reserved to other  

authorities in the Church hierarchy. The Patriarch, thus, cannot be  

permitted to exercise the power in violation of the 1934 Constitution to  

create a parallel system of administration of Churches as done in 2002  

and onwards.  

228.11. This Court has held in 1995 that the unilateral exercise of such  

power by the Patriarch was illegal. The said decision has also been  

violated. It was only in the alternative this Court held in the 1995  

judgment that even if he has such power, he could not have exercised  

the same unilaterally which we have explained in this judgment.  

228.12. It is open to the parishioners to believe in the spiritual  

supremacy of 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  

internal matters and elect their own Bishops in terms of the said  

Constitution.  

228.14. Appointment of Vicar is a secular matter. There is no violation  

of any of the rights encompassed under Articles 25 and 26 of the  

Constitution of India, if the appointment of Vicar, priests, Deacons,  

Prelates (High priests), etc. is made as per the 1934 Constitution. The  

Patriarch has no power to interfere in such matters under the guise of  

spiritual supremacy unless the 1934 Constitution is amended in  

accordance with law. The same is binding on all concerned.  

228.15. 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  

responsibilities at various levels and cannot be usurped by a single

6  

individual howsoever high he may be. The division of powers under the  

1934 Constitution is for the purpose of effective management of the  

Church and does not militate against the basic character of the Church  

being episcopal in nature as mandated thereby. The 1934 Constitution  

cannot be construed to be opposed to the concept of spiritual supremacy  

of the Patriarch of Antioch. It cannot as well, be said to be an  

instrument of injustice or vehicle of oppression on the parishioners who  

believe in the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch.  

228.17. The Church and the 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 the  

management and other powers by raising such disputes as to supremacy  

of Patriarch or Catholicos to gain control of temporal matters under the  

garb of spirituality. There is no good or genuine cause for disputes  

which have been raised.  

228.19. The authority of Patriarch had never extended to the  

government of temporalities of the Churches. By questioning the action  

of the Patriarch and his undue interference in the administration of  

Churches in violation of the 1995 judgment4, 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 judgment4. The property of the Church is to  

be managed as per the 1934 Constitution. The judgment of 19954 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 judgment4 of this Court.  

228.20. The 1934 Constitution is enforceable at present and the plea of  

its frustration or breach is not available to the Patriarch faction. Once  

there is Malankara Church, it has to remain as such including the  

property. No group or denomination by majority or otherwise can take  

away the management or the property as that would virtually  

tantamount to illegal interference in the management and illegal  

usurpation of its properties. It is not open to the beneficiaries even by  

majority to change the nature of the Church, its property and  

management. The only method to change management is to amend the  

Constitution of 1934 in accordance with law. It is not open to the parish  

churches to even frame bye-laws in violation of the provisions of the  

1934 Constitution.

7  

228.21. The Udampadies of 1890 and 1913 are with respect to  

administration of churches and are not documents of the creation of the  

trust and are not of utility at present and even otherwise cannot hold the  

field containing provisions inconsistent with the 1934 Constitution, as  

per Section 132 thereof. The Udampady also cannot hold the field  

in view of the authoritative pronouncements made by this Court in the  

earlier judgments as to the binding nature of the 1934 Constitution.  

228.22. The 1934 Constitution does not create, declare, assign, limit or  

extinguish, whether in present or future any right, title or interest,  

whether vested or contingent in the Malankara Church properties and  

only provides a system of administration and as such is not required to  

be registered. In any case, the Udampadies for the reasons already cited,  

cannot supersede the 1934 Constitution only because these are claimed  

to be registered.  

228.23. In otherwise episcopal Church, whatever autonomy is provided  

in the Constitution for the Churches is for management and necessary  

expenditure as provided in Section 22, etc.  

228.24. The formation of the 2002 Constitution is the result of illegal  

and void exercise. It cannot be recognised and the parallel system  

created thereunder for administration of parish churches of Malankara  

Church cannot hold the field. It has to be administered under the 1934  

Constitution.  

228.25. It was not necessary, after amendment of the plaint in  

Mannathoor Church matter, to adopt the procedure once again of  

representative 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  

management 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 systems  

of administration.  

228.28. Both the factions, for the sake of the sacred religion they  

profess and to pre-empt further bickering and unpleasantness  

precipitating avoidable institutional degeneration, ought to resolve their  

differences if any, on a common platform if necessary by amending the  

Constitution further in accordance with law, but by no means, any  

attempt to create parallel systems of administration of the same  

Churches resulting in law and order situations leading to even closure  

of the Churches can be accepted.”  

6. It is made clear to all concerned more so, to the Courts that in future  

the violation of judgment and order to be viewed seriously.  Let similar  

matters which are pending be decided following aforesaid judgment and

8  

order.  There can be no further litigation as the decision in representative  

suit is binding.   

7. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal and the suit stand  

disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in K.S. Varghese  

(supra), which holds the field.  

8. Let a copy of the order be circulated to all the Courts in Kerala, and  

concerned authorities by Registrar General of the High Court of Kerala  

forthwith.  Let Registrar General submit a report to this Court as to how  

many litigations are pending in the Court as to aforesaid dispute in the  

various courts.  Let the report be submitted within 3 months.  

9. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed with aforesaid directions.  

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.  

    ...........................J.      [ARUN MISHRA]  

 ...........................J.  

   [M.R. SHAH]  

NEW DELHI;  SEPTEMBER 06, 2019.