Holding

The 1934 Constitution is valid and binding, giving the Malankara Metropolitan exclusive authority to appoint vicars and manage the church, and the Division Bench judgment is set aside.

Summary

The appellants, the Metropolitan of Quilon Diocese and a Vicar appointed by him, sued the parishioners of St. Mary's Church, Kattachira, seeking a declaration that they alone have the right to conduct religious services and manage the church and its cemetery, based on an assignment‑cum‑gift deed (Ext‑A3). The trial court and a single High Court judge upheld this claim, but a Division Bench set aside those decisions, holding that the parishioners retained control. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the validity of the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, the effect of Ext‑A3, and the applicability of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. Relying on earlier judgments (Thukalan Paula Avira, P.M.A. Metropolitan, and K.S. Varghese), the Court held that the 1934 Constitution is binding on all parish churches, conferring exclusive temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual authority on the Malankara Metropolitan to appoint vicars and priests. Consequently, the Division Bench’s judgment was set aside and the appeals were allowed, restoring the earlier rulings in favour of the appellants.

Issues considered

The 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is valid and binding on parish churches.
Whether the assignment‑cum‑gift deed (Ext‑A3) confers exclusive rights on the Metropolitan to manage St. Mary's Church and its properties.
Whether the appointment of vicars and priests by the Metropolitan violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
The jurisdiction of civil courts to adjudicate disputes concerning ecclesiastical administration.
The correctness of the Division Bench’s finding that parishioners retain control over the church.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 1 Rule 8, s. Section 11, s. Section 9
Constitution of Indias. Article 25, s. Article 26

Subjects

1934 ConstitutionMalankara Orthodox Syrian ChurchEcclesiastical propertyReligious freedomArticles 25 and 26Civil Procedure CodeParish church managementAssignment‑cum‑gift deedMetropolitan authorityParallel administration

Judgment

848 [2018]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 10 S.C.R. 848 [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A MATHEWS MAR KOORILOS (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC.
v.
M. PAPPY (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6263-6265 of 2001)
B AUGUST 28, 2018
[RANJAN GOGOI, R. BANUMATHI AND
NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Church: Suit filed by appellant no.1/Metropolitan of Quilon
Diocese of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and appellant
C
no.2/Vicar appointed by him for St.Mary’s Church against the
Parishioners of the Church prayed for declaration that the Quilon
Metropolitan and the Vicars appointed by him have exclusive right
to conduct religious services in the plaint Church and Cemetery
and prayed for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants
D and others who do not obey the plaintiffs-appellants from entering
the plaint church and plaint scheduled properties – Case of
appellants was based on Ext A3-assignment-cum-gift deed assigned
in their favour – Trial court held in favour of appellants declaring
that the appellants have right to conduct religious services in the
plaint church and cemetery and granted permanent injunction
E
restraining respondents-defendants and persons who do not obey
the appellants from entering the church and conducting religious
services and obstructing others who obey the appellants – Single
judge of High Court upheld the decision of trial court – However,
Division Bench of High Court set aside the judgment of single judge
F inter alia holding that though the title of properties vested with the
Quilon Diocese, the properties including church, cemetery etc. under
Ext. A3 were still in the control and management of the parishioners
– On appeal, Held: The detailed discussions and conclusions arrived
at in K.S. Varghese case had settled the disputes between the
Patriarch and the Malankara – As per the Constitutional Bench
G
decision in Thukalan and P.M.A, St. Mary’s Church was bound by
1934 Constitution and the control of the Metropolitan – Having
held that the 1934 Constitution is binding upon the Parish Church
and Parishioners, Division Bench was not right in holding that the
Metropolitan had no power to appoint Vicar, Priests etc. – It is not
H open to any individual church to have a parallel system of
848
MATHEWS MAR KOORILOS (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC. v. M. 849
PAPPY (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC.

management in the churches under the guise of spiritual supremacy A
in the Patriarch – Malankara Metropolitan enjoys all the temporal,
ecclesiastical and spiritual administrative powers – St. Mary’s Church
is a constituent of Malankara and the power to appoint Vicar, Priests
etc. is vested with the first plaintiff-Malankara Metropolitan or his
representatives – The finding of the Division Bench that the
B
Metropolitan had no authority to appoint a Vicar is directly opposed
to the provisions of the 1934 Constitution and also recitals in Ext.-
A3-Sale-cum-Gift Deed and number of other documents adduced
by the appellants – Constitution of India – Arts.25 and 26.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
C
HELD: 1. The detailed discussions and conclusions arrived
at in K.S. Varghese case settles the disputes between the appellant
Patriarch and the respondents Malankara. 1934 Constitution is
valid and binding upon the Parishioners. The Parish Church has
to be managed as per the powers conferred under the 1934
Constitution. It is not open to any individual church to have a D
parallel system of management in the churches under the guise
of spiritual supremacy in the Patriarch. As per the consistent
findings in the judgments referred, the prime jurisdiction with
respect to the temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administration
of the Malankara Church is vested with Malankara Metropolitan E
and other authorities appointed by Malankara Metropolitan.
Malankara Metropolitan enjoys all the temporal, ecclesiastical
and spiritual administrative powers. As held in K.S. Varghese case,
“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 F
Vicar, priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests), etc. and thereby
cannot create a parallel system of administration. …….”.
[Paras 15, 16] [863-F; 864-A-D]
K.S. Varghese and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint
Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church and others (2017) 15 G
SCC 333 – relied on.
2. The present matter relates to the Parish Church-St.
Mary’s Church, Kattachira. Ext.-A3-Sale-cum-Gift Deed was
executed in favour of Metropolitan of Quilon Diocese. Ext.-A3
provided that the Metropolitan may directly administer the said H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A properties or through his representatives. Ext.-A3 further
provided that the Parishioners and the Managing Committee
should abide by the dictates of the Metropolitan from time to
time. The recitals in Ext.-A3 make it clear that St. Mary’s
Orthodox Syrian Church, Kattachira and the properties have been
gifted in favour of first plaintiff-Metropolitan Malankara to be
B
treated as Bhadrasanam properties subject to the control of the
Metropolitan in appointing Vicar, Priests etc. As per recitals in
Ext.-A3, the plaint church and the properties come under the
spiritual and the temporal control of the Malankara Metropolitan.
Considering the recitals in Ext.-A3 and the judgments of the
C Supreme Court in Thukalan Paula Avira and P.M.A. Metropolitan
case, the trial court and the Single Judge rightly held that the St.
Mary’s Church is a constituent of Malankara and the power to
appoint Vicar, Priests etc. is vested with the first plaintiff-
Malankara Metropolitan or his representatives. The plaint church
has been a constituent of Metropolitan Malankara and the
D
churches and its properties come under the spiritual and temporal
control of Catholicos. [Paras 17, 18, 20] [864-D-G; 865-C; 866-
C]
Moram Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo
Avira and others AIR 1959 SC 31; Most Rev. P.M.A.
E Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and
another (1995) Supp 4 SCC 286 : [1995] 1 Suppl. SCR
542; Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran
Mar Marthoma Mathews and another (1996) 8 SCC
470 : [1996] 3 SCR 857 – relied on.
F Case Law Reference
AIR 1959 SC 31 relied on Para 9
[1995] 1 Suppl. SCR 542 relied on Para 9
(2017) 15 SCC 333 relied on Para 9
G [1996] 3 SCR 857 relied on Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6263-
6265 of 2001.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2000 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in A.F.A. Nos. 27 & 26 of 1997 and C.R.P. No.
H 1314 of 1998-F.
MATHEWS MAR KOORILOS (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC. v. M. 851
PAPPY (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC.

C. U. Singh, S. Sreekumar, Shyam Divan, Sr. Advs., E. M. S. A
Anam, A. Raghunath, P. J. Philip, Ms. Anupama Sharma, Vishnu Sharma,
Ms. Sonali Negi, Mohit Rai, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Suit O.S. No.187 of 1977 was filed by
appellant No.1/Metropolitan of Quilon Diocese of the Malankara B
Orthodox Syrian Church and appellant No.2/Vicar appointed by him for
St. Mary’s Church, Kattachira. Defendants/respondents in the suit
represent the Parishioners of the Church. Plaintiffs/appellants inter alia
prayed for a declaration that the Quilon Metropolitan and the Vicars
appointed by him have exclusive right to conduct religious services in C
the plaint church, Cemetery and Kiurisumthotty and prayed for prohibitory
injunction restraining the defendants and others who do not obey the
plaintiffs/appellants from entering the plaint church and plaint schedule
properties.
2. Case of the appellants is that as per Ext.-A3 (original of which D
is Ext.-B19) assignment-cum-gift deed dated 29.06.1972, the first
defendant C.K. Koshy assigned the plaint properties along with the church
and cemetery etc. situated thereon, to the Metropolitan, Quilon Diocese
and that they are entitled to conduct religious services and to manage
the church and its properties. The Parishioners who question such
authority are not entitled to hold any office as members of the Church E
Committee or to enter the church.
3. Defendants/respondents who are said to be the representatives
of the Parishioners contended that the Church was founded with the
object of conducting religious services by religious dignitaries who possess
the spiritual grace transmitted from the Patriarch of Antioch and all the F
East, for the benefit of the Parishioners. The church and its properties
constitute a trust and can be used only for the purpose for which it was
founded. The respondents/defendants contended that the plaintiffs/
appellants have repudiated and defied the spiritual powers of the Patriarch
and the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled to conduct any religious G
services in the plaint church. According to them, the plaint church is
administered under the Constitution framed by the Parishioners marked
as Ext.-B9 dated 23.01.1959 and no priest can function in the church
without the consent of the Parishioners.

H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A 4. The Parishioners/respondents have filed a separate suit in O.S.
No.17 of 1976 challenging the validity of Ext.-A3-Sale-cum-Gift Deed
(dated 29.06.1972) in favour of Quilon Metropolitan. On the same grounds
taken by them in the other suit, they alleged that as beneficiaries of the
Church and as its Managing Committee Members, they are entitled to
see that its properties are not lost. They prayed for a decree declaring
B
that Ext.-A3-Sale-cum-Gift Deed is ab initio void and for a perpetual
injunction restraining the Metropolitan from implementing any of the
provisions in the said document.
5. The trial court vide common judgment dated 06.03.1986
dismissed the suit O.S. No.17 of 1976 filed by the respondents and decreed
C the appellant’s suit O.S. No.187 of 1977, declaring that the appellants
have the right to conduct religious services in the plaint church and
cemetery. The trial court granted permanent injunction restraining the
respondents/defendants and persons who do not obey the plaintiffs/
appellants from entering the church and the plaint schedule properties
D and conducting religious services, and obstructing others who obey the
plaintiffs/appellants. The respondents/defendants were also restrained
from obstructing the appellants in completing the construction of the
Kattachira church building or attending to its repairs.
6. Being aggrieved, the respondents/defendants filed appeals A.S.
E Nos.140 and 142 of 1986 in O.S. No.187 of 1977 before the High Court
of Kerala challenging the common judgment dated 06.03.1986. The
Single Judge dismissed both the appeals and held as under:-
1. Various clauses of Ext. A3 gift deed dated 29.06.1972 make
it clear that the executant Koshy gave the assignment-cum-
F gift in favour of the Quilon Metropolitan intending that it
may be treated as Bhadrasanam properties. Ext. A3 also
provided that the Metropolitan may directly administer the
said properties or through his representative and that the
Parishioners and the Managing Committee should abide
by the dictates of the Metropolitan from time to time. In
G view of the unambiguous terms in Ext. A3, the parishioners
are not entitled to question the right of Metropolitan over
the plaint church and its properties and its right to conduct
religious services.
2. Ext. A3 makes it clear that a particular individual has
H gifted the properties in favour of the first appellant
MATHEWS MAR KOORILOS (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC. v. M. 853
PAPPY (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

Metropolitan to be treated as Bhadrasanam properties and A
subject to the control of the first appellant Metropolitan.
Once it is recognised that the properties are Bhadrasanam
properties over which the first appellant Metropolitan can
exercise absolute control and management, appellants are
entitled to these reliefs.
B
3. The 1934 constitution shall govern and regulate the affairs
of the Parish Churches too. The Parish Churches are not
exempted from the clauses of the 1934 Constitution and
they are equally constituent of the Malankara Association
though it enjoys some degree of autonomy.
4. The ex-communication of Catholicos by the Patriarch and/ C
or by the Universal Synod is invalid.
The Single Judge also held that it is Vicar who should conduct the election
as provided in Ext.-A1 Constitution. However, in order to allay the
apprehension of both parties and to ensure that the election is free and
fair and in accordance with Ext.-A1 Constitution, the Single Judge D
appointed two observers to oversee the process of election right from
the beginning to ensure that the conditions in Ext.-A1 1934 Constitution
and the directions of the Supreme Court are followed.
7. Being aggrieved, the defendants/respondents filed appeals
A.F.A. Nos.26-27 of 1997 before the Division Bench. The Division E
Bench vide common judgment dated 04.04.2000 allowed CRP No.1314
of 1998 and disposed of AFA Nos.26-27 of 1997 and set aside the findings
of Single Judge. The Division Bench recorded its conclusions as under:-
• That the civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits relating
to church and its properties and to mould reliefs in such a way F
as to promote the paramount interest of the parishioners and
to reflect the will of the community.
• That though the title of the properties vests with the Quilon
diocese, the properties including church, cemetery etc. under
Ext.-A3 are still under the control and management of the G
parishioners of St. Marys Syrian Church, Kattachira.
• That the first plaintiff-Metropolitan of Quilon Diocese had
no authority to appoint Vicar for the control and management
of the plaint church and its properties though Ext.-A3-Sale-
H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A cum-Gift Deed executed by C.K. Koshy in favour of Quilon
Diocese and C.K. Koshy, executor of Ext.-A3-Sale-cum-
Gift Deed intended to transfer his right in the properties
over for the benefit of entire members of the Church and
that the Parishioners have the power to hold the movable
and immovable properties of St. Mary’s Church.
B
• That the provisions of the 1934 Constitution sufficiently
establish that the Parishioners have power to hold movable
and immovable items of properties.
8. We have heard learned senior counsel for the parties at length.
C We have considered the written submissions and perused the impugned
judgment and other materials on record.
9. The issue of spiritual and temporal authority between Malankara
Church and the Patriarch of Antioch has been the subject matter of
several rounds of litigations in various matters right from the year 1879.
D It is not necessary for us to elaborately refer to those litigations; suffice
to refer the litigations which led to the Constitution Bench judgment in
Moram Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira and others
AIR 1959 SC 31 and the judgment of three-Judges Bench in Most Rev.
P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and
another 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286 and the latest judgment in K.S. Varghese
E and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church
and others(2017) 15 SCC 333.
10. Samudayam Suit:- The Patriarch group in the year 1938 filed
Samudayam suit in the District Court, Kottayam for a declaration of
their title as trustees of Samudayam properties (common properties of
F the Malankara Church) and for a further declaration that the defendants
to that suit belonging to Catholicos group, were not lawful trustees. The
suit was dismissed by the trial court on 18.01.1943 against which the
plaintiff thereon filed an appeal which was allowed on 08.08.1946 and
the suit was decreed1 by majority of Judges by 2:1. The matter was
G carried to this Court. This Court directed2 the High Court to rehear the
appeal on all the points. Thereafter appeal was reheard and was allowed

1
Moram Mar Basselios Catholicos & Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius &
Ors. 1951 SCC OnLine Ker 7
2
Moram Mar Basselios Catholicos & Anr. v. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors. AIR
H 1954 SC 526
MATHEWS MAR KOORILOS (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC. v. M. 855
PAPPY (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

vide judgment dated 13.12.1956. The suit was decreed. The defendants, A
Catholicos group, filed an appeal in this Court which was allowed on
12.09.1958 as per Moram Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo
Avira and others AIR 1959 SC 31. Samudayam suit has been elaborated
and discussed in paras (17) to (21) in K.S. Varghese and others v.
Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church and others
B
(2017) 15 SCC 333.
11. In the year 1979, Catholicos filed O.S. No. 4 of 1979 inter
alia praying that Malankara Church be declared Episcopal in character
and that it is governed in its administration by the Constitution of the
Malankara Church. The Catholicos sought for further declaration that
no metropolitan, priest or deacon can officiate in any of the Malankara C
Churches unless appointed under 1934 Constitution. After dismissal of
the suit by the Single Judge of the High Court, the Division Bench allowed
the appeal thereby upholding the claim of Catholicos group to larger
extent. The matter finally reached to Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma D
and another 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286 held that the power and authority
of the Catholicos was affirmed in Kalpana A-13 and A-14 and was
reinforced and enlarged in 1934 Constitution. It was held that 1934
Constitution is applicable to Malankara Church and its parish Churches
and organisations recognising that the Malankara has control over both
spiritual and communal affairs of the Malankara Church. It was held E
that the Patriarch group cannot question the legality and validity of the
1934 Constitution. The court issued further directions for amendment of
clause 68 of Constitution to bring about proportional representation based
on the size of congregation of each Parish Church.
12. In P.M.A. Metropolitan3, this Court has inter alia recorded F
the conclusions in para (89) as under:-
“89. The conclusions thus reached are:
1. (a) The civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suits for
violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles G
25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and suits.
(b) The expression ‘civil nature’ used in Section 9 of the Civil
Procedure Code is wider than even civil proceedings, and
3
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another
1995 Supp (4) SCC 286 H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A thus extends to such religious matters which have civil
consequence.
(c) Section 9 is very wide. In absence of any ecclesiastical
courts any religious dispute is cognizable, except in very
rare cases where the declaration sought may be what
B constitutes religious rite.
………
4. (a) The effect of the two judgments rendered by the Appellate
Court of the Royal Court and in Moran Mar Basselios
(supra) by this Court is that both Catholicos and Patriarch
C groups continue to be members of the Syrian Orthodox
Church.
(b) The Patriarch of Antioch has no temporal powers over the
Churches.
(c) Effect of the creation of Catholicate at Malankara and 1934
Constitution is that the Patriarch can exercise spiritual
D
powers subject to the Constitution.
(d) The spiritual powers of the Patriarch of Antioch can be
exercised by the Catholico in accordance with the
Constitution.
5. (a) The Hudaya Canon produced by the Patriarch is not the
E
authentic version.
(b) There is no power in the Hudaya Canon to excommunicate
Catholicos.
6. The excommunication of the Catholicos by the Patriarch
was invalid.
F
7. All churches, except those which are of Evangelistic
Association or Simhasana or St. Mary are under spiritual
and temporal control of the Malankara Association in
accordance with 1934 Constitution.”
The judgment in P. M. A. Metropolitan4 has been elaborately referred
G to and discussed in paras (26) to (36) in K.S. Varghese case5.

4
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another
1995 Supp (4) SCC 286
5
K.S. Varghese and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church
and others (2017) 15 SCC 333
H
MATHEWS MAR KOORILOS (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC. v. M. 857
PAPPY (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

13. Amendment of the Constitution as per P.M.A. A
Metropolitan6 judgment:- Amendment proposals were considered by
this Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan7. This Court permitted the amendment
and directed substitution of Section 68 corresponding to Section 71 and
also directed that the election shall take place within three months on the
basis of Articles 71 and 46 as amended. This Court further directed
B
status quo to be maintained until the new Managing Committee was
elected. Subsequently, the matter came up again before this Court
pursuant to the P. M. A. Metropolitan8 and revised decree was passed
in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma
Mathews and another (1996) 8 SCC 470. The court directed certain
modifications in paras (2), (3) and (4). This Court inter alia held thus:- C
“5. The decree shall then say that the decree passed by the High
Court (decree under appeal) shall stand modified to the extent
indicated above.
PART II
D
6. In Part II of the order dated 25.03.19969, the following sentence
shall be inserted before the last sentence: ‘The above direction
is subject to the condition that any and every person claiming
to hold any office or post in this Church shall be bound by
and shall swear allegiance to the 1934 Constitution.’”
[Referred to and quoted in para (39) of K.S. Varghese case10] E

The judgment in P.M.A. Metropolitan11 was implemented in execution
proceedings before the Kerala High Court. The details of the execution
proceedings are discussed in paras (40) to (42) in K.S. Varghese case12.

6
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another F
1995 Supp (4) SCC 286
7
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another
1995 Supp (4) SCC 286
8
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another
1995 Supp (4) SCC 286
9
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma Mathews and
another(1996) 8 SCC 470
G
10
K.S. Varghese and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church
and others (2017) 15 SCC 333
11
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another
1995 Supp (4) SCC 286
12
K.S. Varghese and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church
and others (2017) 15 SCC 333 H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A 14. Dispute arose relating to Kolenchery Church, Varikoli
Church and Mannathur Church regarding which civil suits were filed
in a representative capacity. The dispute arising from all these three
Churches travelled to this Court. This Court again considered the earlier
judgments in Moram Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo
Avira and others AIR 1959 SC 31 and Most Rev. P. M. A. Metropolitan
B
and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another 1995 Supp (4)
SCC 286. After considering the submissions on both sides, in the light of
Thukalan Paula Avira13 and P. M. A. Metropolitan14 judgments and
after such elaborate consideration, this Court in K. S. Varghese case15
summarised the conclusions inter alia as under:-
C “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.
D 228.2. The decree in the Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v.
Moran Mar Marthoma 1995 Supp (4) 286 is completely in tune
with the judgment. There is no conflict between the judgment
and the decree.
228.3. The Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar
E Marthoma 1995 Supp (4) 286 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
F 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
G exercise of right under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of
India. It is also not permissible to create a parallel system of
13
Moram Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira & Ors. AIR 1959 SC 31
14
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another
1995 Supp (4) SCC 286
15
K.S. Varghese and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church
H and others (2017) 15 SCC 333
MATHEWS MAR KOORILOS (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC. v. M. 859
PAPPY (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

management in the Churches under the guise of spiritual A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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. E
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 F
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 Most
Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma 1995 Supp G
(4) 286 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 H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A 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 held4 in 1995 that the unilateral exercise
B 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 Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar
Marthoma 1995 Supp (4) 286 that even if he has such power,
he could not have exercised the same unilaterally which we have
explained in this judgment.
C 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
D 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
E 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.
F
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
G 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 individual howsoever high he may be. The division of
H powers under the 1934 Constitution is for the purpose of effective
MATHEWS MAR KOORILOS (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC. v. M. 861
PAPPY (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

management of the Church and does not militate against the A
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
B
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 C
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. D
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 E
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 Most Rev. P.M.A. F
Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma 1995 Supp (4) 286, 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
G
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. H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
C even frame bye-laws in violation of the provisions of the 1934
Constitution.
228.21. The Udampadies of 1890 and 1913 are with respect to
administration of churches and are not documents of the creation
of the trust and are not of utility at present and even otherwise
D 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,
E 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
F 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
G 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
H
MATHEWS MAR KOORILOS (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC. v. M. 863
PAPPY (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

of representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. It remained a 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. B
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.
C
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 D
administration of the same Churches resulting in law and order
situations leading to even closure of the Churches can be
accepted.”
15. Though various arguments were advanced by learned senior
counsel Mr. Shyam Divan to urge that the conclusions arrived in K.S. E
Varghese case16 is not in consonance with the judgment in P.M.A.
Metropolitan17, the same do not merit acceptance. Having carefully
gone through the conclusions in para (228) of the K.S. Varghese case18,
in our view, the conclusions are well in consonance with the Thukalan
Paula Avira19and P.M.A. Metropolitan20 judgments. The detailed
discussions and conclusions arrived at in K.S. Varghese case21 settles the F
disputes between the appellant Patriarch and the respondents Malankara.
16
K.S. Varghese and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church
and others (2017) 15 SCC 333
17
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another
1995 Supp (4) SCC 286 G
18
K.S. Varghese and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church
and others (2017) 15 SCC 333
19
Moram Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira AIR 1959 SC 31
20
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another
1995 Supp (4) SCC 286
21
K.S. Varghese and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church
and others (2017) 15 SCC 333 H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A 16. As per the consistent view taken in the above judgments,
1934 Constitution is valid and binding upon the Parishioners. The Parish
Church has to be managed as per the powers conferred under the 1934
Constitution. It is not open to any individual church to have a parallel
system of management in the churches under the guise of spiritual
supremacy in the Patriarch. As per the consistent findings in the above
B
judgments, the prime jurisdiction with respect to the temporal, ecclesiastical
and spiritual administration of the Malankara Church is vested with
Malankara Metropolitan and other authorities appointed by Malankara
Metropolitan. Malankara Metropolitan enjoys all the temporal,
ecclesiastical and spiritual administrative powers (Para (145) of K.S.
C Varghese case22). As held in K.S. Varghese case23, “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. …….”.
D
17. The present matter relates to the Parish Church-St. Mary’s
Church, Kattachira. The plaint Church was listed as Serial No.41-among
1064 Parish Churches included in the plaint Schedule in the representative
suit in OS No.4 of 1979. Ext.-A3-Sale-cum-Gift Deed was executed by
C.K. Koshy in favour of Metropolitan of Quilon Diocese. The recitals in
E Ext.-A3 make it clear that C.K. Koshy executed the Sale-cum-Gift Deed
in favour of Metropolitan of Quilon Diocese intending that it may be
treated as Bhadrasanam properties. Ext.-A3 provided that the
Metropolitan may directly administer the said properties or through his
representatives. Ext.-A3 further provided that the Parishioners and the
F Managing Committee should abide by the dictates of the Metropolitan
from time to time. The recitals in Ext.-A3 make it clear that St. Mary’s
Orthodox Syrian Church, Kattachira and the properties have been gifted
in favour of first plaintiff-Metropolitan Malankara to be treated as
Bhadrasanam properties subject to the control of the Metropolitan in
appointing Vicar, Priests etc. As per recitals in Ext.-A3, the plaint church
G and the properties come under the spiritual and the temporal control of
the Malankara Metropolitan.
22
K.S. Varghese and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church
and others (2017) 15 SCC 333
23
K.S. Varghese and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church
H and others (2017) 15 SCC 333
MATHEWS MAR KOORILOS (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC. v. M. 865
PAPPY (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

18. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in the Constitution A
Bench in Thukalan Paula Avira24 and P.M.A. Metropolitan25, St. Mary’s
Church is bound by Ext.-A1 Constitution and the control of the
Metropolitan. Having held that the 1934 Constitution is binding upon the
Parish Church and its Parishioners, the Division Bench was not right in
holding that the Metropolitan had no power to appoint Vicar, Priests etc.
B
The conclusion of the Division Bench that the Parishioners have the
right to make all such appointments and to manage the affairs of St.
Mary’s Church is directly contrary to the express provisions of the 1934
Constitution and the findings of the Supreme Court in P.M.A.
Metropolitan26. Considering the recitals in Ext.-A3 and the judgments
of the Supreme Court in Thukalan Paula Avira 27 and P.M.A. C
Metropolitan28, the trial court and the Single Judge rightly held that the
St. Mary’s Church is a constituent of Malankara and the power to appoint
Vicar, Priests etc. is vested with the first plaintiff-Malankara Metropolitan
or his representatives.
19. Metropolitan of Quilon Diocesewas exercising control over D
St. Mary’s Church is also evident from various document adduced in
evidence referred to in detail in the judgment of the trial court as under:-
“18. …….Ever since the reproachment was made between the
patriarch group and the Catholicose group after the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the above case in 1958, the plaint church E
has paid dues both to the Diocesan Metropolitan and the
Catholicose in recognition of their spiritual control over the church.
Exts. A4 and A6 would show that the plaint church was sending
its delegates for representing it in the Malankara Syrian Christian
association. The priests are appointed in the church by the first
plaintiff and the church was sending to him the salary due to the F
priests regularly. Exts. A14 to A17 and A23 to A32 will bear this
out. Several other dues payable to the Metropolitan and
Catholicose are also seen to have been sent by the plaint church
24
Moram Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira & Ors. AIR 1959 SC 31
25
G
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another
1995 Supp (4) SCC 286
26
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another
1995 Supp (4) SCC 286
27
Moram Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira & Ors. AIR 1959 SC 31
28
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another
1995 Supp (4) SCC 286 H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A accepting the spiritual supremacy of the Catholicose and the
Metropolitan under him. Exts. A18 is the printed annual report
of the Quilon Bhadrasanam for the year 1974 showing the
contributions made by the Bhadrasanam for the building of the
plaint church. Exts. A7 and A8 are Kalpanas issued by the first
plaintiff appointing priests to the plaint church…..”
B
20. The above exhibits referred to in the judgment of the trial
court namely appointment of the Priests to the plaint church by the
Metropolitan and the regular payment of salary to the Priests so appointed
and the church sending its delegates for representing it in the Malankara
Church Association and other documents would amply show that the
C plaint church has been a constituent of Metropolitan Malankara and the
churches and its properties come under the spiritual and temporal control
of Catholicos.
21. DW-1 has spoken about the pothuyogam of the plaint church
which has taken the decision that Ext.-A1-1934 Constitution is not suitable
D to the church and the sabha and that as per the said Resolution, the
pothuyogam had decided to request the authorities of the Malankara
Church or Sabha to repudiate the 1934 Constitution (Ext.-A1) which
was then in force. As rightly observed by the trial court, once 1934
Constitution (Ext.-A1) had been adopted by the plaint church and was in
E force, there can be no question of requesting the authorities to repudiate
it. This is also an indication to show that the plaint church has accepted
the 1934 Constitution and the spiritual authority of the Catholicos. The
finding of the Division Bench that the Metropolitan had no authority to
appoint a Vicar is directly opposed to the provisions of the 1934
Constitution and also recitals in Ext.-A3-Sale-cum-Gift Deed and number
F of other documents adduced by the appellants. The finding of the Division
Bench that the Metropolitan had no authority to appoint Vicar and Priests
is directly in contradiction to the Constitution Bench judgment in Thukalan
Paula Avira29 and P.M.A. Metropolitan30.
22. Contention of the respondent is that the issue regarding the
G interpretation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India ought to
be determined by a Bench comprising at least five Judges of the Supreme
Court under Article 145 (3) of the Constitution of India is not tenable.
29
Moram Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira & Ors. AIR 1959 SC 31
30
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another
H 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286
MATHEWS MAR KOORILOS (DEAD) AND ANR. ETC. v. M. 867
PAPPY (DEAD) AND ANOTHER ETC. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

The contention of Patriarch that the Parishioners have a right of freedom A
of religion and the question of law regarding fundamental rights under
Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India had already been raised
and elaborately argued by different senior counsels in K.S. Varghese
case31 (vide paras 57.2, 57.2.1, 57.2.2, 57.4, 59.2, 60, 62 etc.). Contention
relating to violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India has
B
been elaborately considered in K.S. Varghese case32 under sub-heading
“In re: parishioners have a right to follow their faith under Article
25 and appointment of Vicar, priest and deacons, etc. and manage
affairs under Article 26 of the Constitution of India”. After referring
to various judgments rejecting the contention of the Patriarch of Antioch
as to the violation of the right under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution C
of India. In para (146) of the judgment, it was held as under:-
“146. …….. Spiritual power is also with various authorities like
Catholicos, Malankara Metropolitan, etc. Thus it is too far-fetched
an argument that the Patriarch of Antioch or his delegate should
appoint a Vicar or priest. There is no violation of any right of D
Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution of India. Neither any of the
provisions relating to appointment of the Vicar can be said to be
in violation of any of the rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India. The 1934 Constitution cannot be said to be
in violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. It
was suggested that the faith involved in the present case refers E
to apostolic succession from Jesus Christ viz. the blessings and
grace of Christ descends through an apostle i.e. St. Peter or St.
Thomas as the case may be, and from the said apostle to the
Pope/Patriarch who appoints a Vicar. The argument ignores and
overlooks other offices that are in-between like Catholicos, F
Malankara Metropolitan, and Diocesan Metropolitan, etc. It is
not necessary for the Pope and the Patriarch to appoint Vicar
because management of a Church is not a religious ritual.”
We endorse the above view taken in K.S. Varghese case33 that the
1934 Constitution cannot be said to be in violation of Articles 25 and 26
G
of the Constitution of India.
31
K.S. Varghese and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church
and others (2017) 15 SCC 333
32
K.S. Varghese and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church
and others (2017) 15 SCC 333
33
K.S. Varghese and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church
and others (2017) 15 SCC 333 H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R.

A 23. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench is in
contradiction to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Thukalan Paula
Avira34, P.M.A. Metropolitan35 and K.S. Varghese case36 and the same
cannot be sustained. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside
and these appeals are allowed.
B Devika Gujral Appeals allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

34
Moram Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira & Ors. AIR 1959 SC 31
35
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another
1995 Supp (4) SCC 286
36
K.S. Varghese and others v. Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church
H and others (2017) 15 SCC 333