9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the review application. 2. Validity of the Karingasserai meeting and election of trustees. 3. Alleged concession by defendants' advocate regarding plaintiffs' membership in the church. 4. Consideration of matters agreed to be left out in issue No. 11(a). Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Review Application: The primary issue was whether the review application, filed on 22nd August 1946, was maintainable given the political and judicial changes, including the adoption of the new Constitution of India and the merger of Travancore and Cochin. The court examined Regulation IV of 1099, the Covenant of merger, and subsequent ordinances and acts. The Attorney-General argued that the review application had become infructuous due to the changes, but the court found this contention unfounded. The court held that the application for review was properly made to the Travancore High Court and had to be continued under section 8 of Ordinance No. II of 1124 and section 8 of the Act of 1125, even after the formation of the United State of Travancore and Cochin. Consequently, the preliminary objection was rejected. 2. Validity of the Karingasserai Meeting and Election of Trustees: The plaintiffs needed to establish their title as trustees by proving the validity of the Karingasserai meeting where they were elected. The defendants contended that the meeting was not convened by competent persons and that notice was not given to all churches. The District Judge found that the meeting was not properly convened and that notices were not sent to all churches. The High Court majority, however, reversed this finding, stating that the defendants had gone out of the Church by adopting a new constitution (Ex. AM), thus justifying the lack of notice. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not adequately addressed the competency of the conveners and the service of notice to all churches, making their judgment defective and constituting an error apparent on the face of the record. 3. Alleged Concession by Defendants' Advocate Regarding Plaintiffs' Membership in the Church: The High Court majority's decision was influenced by an alleged concession from the defendants' advocate that the plaintiffs had not left the Church. The Supreme Court found that this was a misapprehension. The defendants' advocate had argued that neither party could be said to have left the Church merely due to differences in views. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have considered whether the plaintiffs' actions amounted to voluntarily leaving the Church, separate from acts of heresy, and whether such actions required an ecclesiastical verdict. The High Court's failure to do so constituted a significant error. 4. Consideration of Matters Agreed to Be Left Out in Issue No. 11(a): Issue No. 11(a) was agreed to be left out by both parties, focusing only on specific powers of the Patriarch. However, the High Court majority considered three matters beyond the agreed scope: the obligation to obey the Patriarch, the extent of the Patriarch's right to decide matters of faith, and the necessity of the Patriarch's approval for a Catholicos. The Supreme Court found that deciding against a party on matters not within the issues on which the parties went to trial amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and admitted the review, directing the entire appeal to be reheard on all points unless both parties accept any of the High Court's findings. The appellants were awarded the costs of the appeal and the application for review before the High Court. The observations made were solely for the purpose of the review application and should not be taken as comments on the merits of the restored appeal.
|
