IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
HINDUPUR
Present: Sri D. Ramulu, II Additional District Judge
Tuesday, the 25 th day of April, 2017
O.S. No. 4 of 2001
Between:
1.Ceylon & India General Mission Church, Mission Compound, Recognized by C&I General Mission, Bangalore, with Regn. No. 608/1956, recognized under Companies Act, represented by its Deacon Board President- cum-Pastor K. Shalim Das, S/o K. Chandraiah, Christian, Paster of Plaintiff Church, aged about 30 years, Mission compound, Hindupur.
2.K.Shalim Das, S/o K. Chandraiah, aged about 30 years, working as Pastor in C&I.G. Mission Church, Mission compound, Hasnabad, Hindupur.
3.Y. Prabhakar Sahayam, S/o K. Chandraiah, Christian, aged about 66 years, R/o. D.No. 17-6-491, New Hasnabadm Deacon Board Member (Secretary) of Plaintiff Church, Mission compound, Hindupur.
4.K. Devaraj, S/o K. Rahanna, Christian, aged about 46 years, Door No. 26-4-138, R.T.C. Colony, Deacon Board Member (Treasurer) C&I. G. Church, Mission Compound, Hindupur.
5.J.D. Varaprasad, S/o. J.D. Swamy Das, R.T.C. Quarters, aged 47 years No. 2, Deacon Member, C&I. G. Mission Church, Mission Compound, Hindupur.
6.B.J. Sekhar, S/o B. Joolaiah, Christian,. aged about 48 years, Deacon Board Member, Cum –Joint Secretary, Door No. 17-6-417, Hasnabad, Hindupur.
7.G. Elaiah, S/o G. Lazar, Christian, aged about 50 years, working as Teacher, Deacon Board Member, R/o. Door No. 25-2-103, Ahmmadnagar, Hindupur.
8.V. Victor Jashuva, S/o. V. Veda Manikyam, Christian, aged about 42 years, working as Attender, Govt. Jr. College for Girls, Hindupur. Deacon board Member, R/o. D.No. 1-6-6, Abadpet, Hindupur.
OS.4/2001 - 2 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
9.S.Ravindra Nath, S/o S.Narasimhulu, Christian, aged 46 years, Secretary and Deacon Board Member & I G Mission Church, Mission Compound, Hindupur (Added as per orders in I.A.343/2011 dt.27.4.2012 in the place of deceased plaintiff No.3)
... Plaintiffs
and
1.Ceylon & India General Mission, Registered under Companies Act with its No. 608/1956, with Regd. Office at No.25, Pattry Road, in Civil Station Bangalore, Represented by its chairman Rev. Raja M. Selvaraj, residing at C&I.G. Mission Bungalow, Satyamangalam, Erode Dist. Tamilnadu.
2.Rev. Raja Selvaraj, aged 57 years, Christian S/o. Late Raja Manicham, residing at C & I. G. Mission Bungalow, Satyamangalam, Erode, District, Tamilnadu.
3.Rev.Rajakumar Rabinson, S/o Last J.Rabinson Erusoe, Christian, Major, residing in D.No. No.2/260.B.1, Pannagar, Mettu Dam., Salem Dist. Tamilnadu.
4.C&I.G. Mission Church, Reg. under Societies Act with Regn.. No. 148/78, by its President, M. Bhaskar, R/o. In Door No. 26-4-796, Srinivasanagar, Hindupur.
5.M. Bhaskar, S/o not known Christian, 60 years, President of C&IG Mission Church, (D-4) residing in D.No. 26-4- 796, Srinivasanagar, Hindupur.
6.K. Bhaskar Rao, S/o. K. Andrews, Christian, aged about 68 years, Retd. Employee, Vice-President of D-4 Society, R/o D.No. 1-4-3, Abadpet, Hindupur.
7.M. Dinakar, S/o M. John Babu, Christian, aged about 68 years, Secretary of D-4, Society, R/o. D.No. 17-5-7, Church Compound, Hindupur.(Died)
OS.4/2001 - 3 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
8.K.C.B. Krupananda, S/o. K.C.B. Benjimen, Christian, aged about 64, years, Joint Secretary of D-4, Society R/o. D.No. 1-6-3A, Abadpet, Hindupur.
9.M.A. Jayakumar, S/o. M.J. Moses, aged 58 years, Christian, Treasurer of D-4 Society, and R/o D.No. 17-6-100, Karunapura, Hindupur.
10.P. Wilson, S.o P. Arther Roach, aged about 69 years, Joint Reasurer of D-4 Society, R/o.D.No. 1-6-3, Abadpet, Hindupur.
11.K.R.Narasimhulu, S/o K. Rangappa, 62 years, Christian, deacon Member of D4 Society, R/o D.No. 26-4-852, RPGT Road, Hindupur.
12.K.J.Sekhar Babu, S/o K. Joseph, 47 years, Deacon Member of D-4 Society, residing in D.No. 17-7-10, Karunapura, Hindupur.
13.V. Pal Shantakumar, S/o V. Devananda, Christian, aged about 46 years, Abadpet, Hindupur.
14.John Davidson, aged about 40 years. S/o B. Yesurathna, C&IG Mission Compound, Hindupur.
15.M. James, S/o Late M. Johan Babu, Christian, D.No. 17-7-1, Karunapuram Stret, Hindupur. Now Residing in D.No. 1C-1, Employee in A.P. Secretariat. Yerramanjil Colony, Hyderabad.
16.Smt.T.Nirmala Reddy, Medical Practitioner, 42 years W/o T. Ramesh Reddy, R/o. D.No. 17-5-201, Hasnabad, Hindupur.
17.D.S.Gangadhar, S/o D. Suryaprakash. Hindu,Business, aged about 43 years, R/o D.No. 4-6-53/A, Srinivaanagar, Near Municipal Office Road, Hindupur.
18.Y. Prabhakar, S/o. Y. Laxman Rao, Hindu, Aged about 38 years, R&B Contractor, Penukonda road, Hindupur.
19.K.R. Chandramohan, S/o K.R.Bhaska- raiah, Hindu, aged 32 years, Business, R/o D.No. 2-5-31, S.B.I. Lane, Penukonda road, Hindupur.
OS.4/2001 - 4 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
20.M.Elisha Prabhakar, S/o late M.Dinakar aged 44 years, Christian, Secretary of D.4 Society R/o D.No.17-5-7, Hindupur (Added as per orders in I.A.846/06 dt.18-9-06)
21.B.V.Ramana Reddy, S./o Narasimha Reddy, aged 48 years, Hindu, Business, R/o in D.No.17-2-23, YSR Hospital, Pullivendala Town, Kadapa Dist.
22.B.Petal Paul, S/o late B.Yesurathnam , aged 45 years, Christian, Employee, R/o in Mission Bungalow, C&IG Compound, Hindupur.
23.T.Shabbir Basha, S/o Mahboob Sab, Muslim, aged 38 years, Business, R/o in D.No.10-698-1, Vali Sab Road, Nagaraj Street, Kadiri.
24.S.Mustafa, S/o S.Mahaboob Basha, aged 47 years, Muslim, Business, R./o in D.No.1-568, Rly-Station Road, Kadiri.
25.K.Arshad Basha, S/.o Bashu Sab, aged 48 years, Muslim, Business, R/o in D.No.12-122, Kadiri.
26.Mahmmad Mustafa, S/o V.Abdul Subhan, aged 49 years, Muslim, Business,R/o in D.No.1-126, Kadiri.
27.M.H.Inayathulla, S/o late K.Mahmmad Hussain, aged 54 years, Business, Muslim, R/o in D.No.17-2-151/A, Parigi Road, Hindupur.
28.S.D.Bhaskar, S/o Satya Das, aged 71 years, Christian, claiming to be chairmen of D.1 Mission, No.25 Pottery Road, Bangalore.
29.N.B.P.Soloman Raju, S/o N.Manik Rao, aged 57 years, Christian, Claiming to be secretary of D.1 Mission, No.25, Pottery Road, Bangalore.
30.Matta Madugu Rajasekhara Reddy, S/o M.Akkula Reddy, Hindu, aged 50years, Agriculture, R/o Karavula Palli, Gorantla Mandal, Anantapur Dist.
31.Mekala Cheruvu Ramanna, S/o M.Venkatachalam, Hindu, aged 34 years, R/o in D.no.1-218, Mekala
OS.4/2001 - 5 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Cheruvu Village, NP Kunta Mandal, Anantapur Dt.
32.Muddunur Kumara Swamy, S/o M.Rama Swamy, Ex-service men, aged 47 years, Christian, R/o at London Mission Compound, Muddunur, Kadapa Dist.
(Defendants No.21 to 32 were added as per orders in I.A.406 of 2012 dated 11.6.2012) ….Defendants
Thissuit is coming on this day for disposal before me in the presence of Sri P.Guru Prasad and Sri P.Nagabhushana Rao, advocates for the plaintiffs and of Sri K.S.Rajasekhar, advocate for the defendants No.1, 2 and 13, Sri D. Pakkera Reddy and Sri
R.Sreekanth Reddy, advocates for the defendants No.4 to 12, Sri
K.Subbaraju Guptha and Sri Karanapu Sreenivasulu, advocates for the defendants No.17 and 18, Sri B.Sreenivasa Rao, advocate for the defendant No.19, Sri A.Venugopala Sarma, advocate for the defendant No.27 and Sri E.Rajasekhar, advocate for the defendants No.30 to 32, and the defendants No.14 to 16, 21, 24 to 26, 28 and 29 having been called absent and set exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1.This is the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for (a) declaring the right of the 1st plaintiff Church and plaintiffs No.2 to 8 and pastor in office and Members of Deacon Board, to use, manage and administer the plaint ‗A‘ and ‗B‘ schedule properties in accordance with the constitution, principles and practice of the first plaintiff Church and first defendant Mission; (b) cancellation of the registered sale deeds, viz.,-- (1)dated 22.3.2000 in favour of the defendant No.16 executed by the defendants No.4 to 12 for
OS.4/2001 - 6 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Rs.1,90,500/- in respect of item No.1 of the plaint ‗B‘ schedule property; (2)dated 25.5.2000 in favour of the defendant No.16 executed by the defendants No.4 to 12 for
Rs.2,72,000/- in respect of item No.2 and 3 of the plaint ‗B‘ schedule property; (3)dated 16.2.2001 in favour of the defendants No.17 and 18 executed by the defendants No.2, 3 and 14 for
Rs.1,40,000/- in respect of item No.4 of the plaint ‗B‘ schedule property; (4)dated 16.2.2001 in favour of the defendants No.17 and 18 executed by the defendants No.2, 3 and 14 for
Rs.1,35,000/- in respect of item No.5 of the plaint ‗B‘ schedule property; (5)lease deed (Regd) dated 10.9.1999 in favour of D-19 executed by the then President of D-4 society for
Rs.1,50,000/- in respect of item No.6 of the plaint ‗B‘ schedule property; (c) for consequential relief of permanent injunction in favour of the 1st plaintiff church, and plaintiffs No.2 to 8, pastor in office and Members of Deacon Board and against defendants No.2 to 32, restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and right to use, manage and administer the plaint ‗A‘ and ‗B‘ schedule properties; and (d) costs of the suit.
2.The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:
The plaintiffs submit that believing that evangelization of the world is the first and for most duty of the Church and to
OS.4/2001 - 7 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 evangelize the unreached parts of India, to form self-supporting, self governing and self extending churches. The first Defendant
Mission was found initially, in the year 1893 and the same was incorporated on the 12th March, 1928. Even before that, the
Association was registered as a Society on 12th November, 1897 under Indians Societies Act, XXI of 1860. Subsequently, the first-defendant Mission registered as a Limited Company under
Indian Companies Act, 1986, The Registered office of the first
Defendant, at present, is at No. 11, Pottery Road, Bangalore,
Karnataka State. The first Defendant Mission carriers out its mission field, aims and objects in various parts of country dividing Mission field into districts and filed committees and one such Field Committee at Hindupur. The first plaintiffs duly constituted field committee in accordance with the constitution
Articles, Principles and Practice of the first defendant Mission.
The plaintiff No.2 is the duly appointed pastor and plaintiffs 3 to 8 are the duly constitute committee of the Deacon Board of the
First Plaintiff, as per appointment orders and resolutions Dt. 25- 9-99 and 25-6-2000.
The Plaintiffs submit that the first plaintiff is the permanent Body and its Deacon Board Members are elected once in Two years, Accordance with the rules framed by the First
Defendant Mission under the name and style C.I. & G.M. Telugu
Churches Councils, 1995 amending the previous Rules. The said
Rules are framed for better governance and for carrying out the
Mission objects and aims of the Church, established by the first defendant Mission at Hindupur.
OS.4/2001 - 8 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
The plaintiffs submit that the first plaintiff is the first defendant Mission, in pursuance of its Mission and out of the
General Funds and designated funds purchased immovable landed properties in Sy. Nos. 100-2, Govt Dry, Land Extent of
AC. 8.20 cents and Sy.No. 101-1 in an extent of AC. 3.80 cents and in T.S. No.26 and in T.S. No. 39 and T.S. No. 27, 35, under various registered sale deeds on different dates, such as 19.12.1896; 21.6.1904; etc., The original registered sale deeds if the above properties are in the custody of D-1 Mission. The aforesaid properties were acquired under above said various sale deeds with the concurrence approval of the, the then field committee, at Hindupur. The plaintiffs submit the above said properties have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the first plaintiff for and on behalf of the first defendant, in accordance with the constitution, principles and practice.
The plaintiffs submit that, right to possession, right to management and right to control over the properties mentioned above, are vested with the Field committee alone, including the right to purchase and to dispose of the property and in cases where the purchasing or disposing of the properties involving large sums of money, the first plaintiff has taken concurrence of the others Councils of the Mission. As per the constitution, the first plaintiff alone is the De Jure owner of the all the properties at Hindupur, subject to the control of the First Defendant Mission in the matters relating to financial and administrative control.
No one else, including the first defendant Mission, have absolutely, any fight, to deal with the above properties with whim and fancies and to frustrate the aims and objects of the
OS.4/2001 - 9 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
First Defendant Missions. An objective reading of the constitution, practice and principles, mandates duty for accounting and utilization of funds, with utmost trust, in consonance with aims and objects.
The plaintiffs submit that the first plaintiff, in consonance with aims of the Church, and in dispensation of social and religious service, set part, Sy. No. 101-1, in an extent Ac.3.80 cents for cemetery (burial ground) to cater the needs of all members professing the religious faith of Christianity at
Hindupur. Number of Tombs is in existence. Practice of burying of the bodies in the premises is continuous and uninterrupted.
In response to the social and educational pursuits, from out of designated funds, a Boarding Home was constructed in
T.S. No.27 along with quarters for staff and a Mission Bungalow, for carrying out the first defendant Mission long back. Poor and destitute children of Christian Community have been provided with free education and free accommodation and boarding.
The first plaintiff submits that due to varied reasons, the strength of the Boarding Home was down gradient, which was closed ultimately. The Minutes of the council of the first
Defendant was communicated to the first plaintiff office bearers vide Lr. Dated 13-5-1998. The plaintiff is filing the said letter herein and craves permission of this Hon‘ble Court to read the same as part and parcel of this plaint.
One Rev. late B. Yesurathnam was appointed as Pastor of the first plaintiff church, in accordance with the constitution and he continued to work as Pastor of the first plaintiff church, till his death, prior to 1973, Defendants 7 to D-11 and their followers
OS.4/2001 - 10 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 and others of their Group made serious objections in conducting prayers in the Church by Re. Late B.Yesurathnam used to conduct prayers and religious activities at some other place, other than the Church, in T.S.No.39 bearing D.No.12-5-1 of
Hindupur town. The plaintiffs submit that as the strength of
Boarding Home is decreasing year by year, the first plaintiff church, through it‘s the then Secretary. Addressed a letter on 7.6.1984 to the first Defendant Mission, seeking permission to use the Boys Boarding home, situate in T.S. NO. 27 of Hindupur town, for conducting said services, and the first defendant
Mission, through its council approved the proposal of the first plaintiff church and the same was communicated to the first plaintiff and the Hon‘ble Court may read the contents of the letter as part and parcel of their plaint.
The plaintiffs submit that, by out of the designated funds of the plaintiff congregation, structural alternations are made to the Boarding Home under the benevolent guidance of Rev. late
B. Yesurathnam, the then pastor of the first plaintiff Church, and the same was communicated to the first defendant mission and since then, the prayers and workshop activities as ordained, are, uninterruptedly and continuously, conducting in the Boarding
Home, to the Knowledge of the defendants 1 to 15, which is evidenced by the letter addressed by Defendant No. 4 the then
Chairman, P.D.Parnjyothi and M. Dinakar, to the President, Boys
Boarding Home, and the same is field herewith which may kindly be read as part and parcel of this plaint.
As the religious service i.e. prayer and worship activities gained momentum, the first plaintiff mission, sent a proposal for
OS.4/2001 - 11 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 earmarking a definite area in Sy. No. 27 locally called ―MISSION
COMPOUND‖ for church purpose including the Boys Boarding
Home. The proposals are accepted by the first defendant
Mission, with some alternations, to the plan submitted by the first plaintiff. The Minutes of the first defendant Mission dated 1.8.1995 and 5.8.1996 are communicated by the first defendant
Mission dated 15.5.1998.
The plaintiffs submit that the Deacon Board under the benevolent guidance of late Rev. B. Yesurathnam, the then pastor of the first plaintiff was appointed by the first defendant as such and he has been carrying out the objects and aims of the Mission with all earnestness, dedication and devotion. The plaintiff submit that the value of aforesaid properties have been increased considerably, with a view to gain control over the financial matters of the Church and to aggrandize themselves, defendants 7 to 10 and their men began to create troubles among the members of the first plaintiff and got filed O.S.
320/72 and O.S. 518/73 against the then Pastor late Rev. late B.
Yesurathnam and another alleging mala fides and with a mala fide intention and motivation to stop disharmony among the members, or conspicuous evidence, the Hon‘ble court, by its common judgment dated 27.8.1977 categorically found and observed that the General Body should expel the plaintiffs in the above suit from primary membership and only then peace and tranquility in the church will be restored and the unity of the minority community will be preserved, but, it is left to the
General Body. Holding so, the trail court dismissed both the suits with costs. The judgment dated 10.4.1980 in A.S. No. 228/77
OS.4/2001 - 12 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 and A.S. No. 230/77. The judgments of the trail court and appellate court are filled herewith and the plaintiff craves permission of Hon‘ble court to read them as part and parcel of this plaint.
The plaintiffs submit that wisdom should have been drawn on the plaintiffs in the above said suits and the defendants 5 to 12 by the observations and findings of the trial Court, they should have strived for the unity of the Church and should have discharged the religious and social service. Instead, as they have bent upon grabbing the property for their own selfish ends, the defendants 5 to 12 here in and tee plaintiffs in O.S.
320/1973 and O.S. 519/1973, registered and Society in the name and style of CEYLON AND INDIA GENERAL MISSION
CHURCH, HINDUPUR, with Registration No. 148/1978 under the
Societies Registration Act. The plaintiffs submit that, the said
Association has absolutely no manner of right, title, interest and have any semblance of right, over the affairs of the first plaintiff.
The properties of the first plaintiff are subject to the control and approval of the first defendant. The plaintiffs submit that after registering under the Society Registration Act, the 4th defendant at the behest of defendants 5 to 12, began to create troubles and totally claim over the affairs of the first plaintiff. This conduct on the part of the 4th defendant and defendants 5 to 12, is brought to the notice of the first defendant. The first defendant, in accordance with the constitution, met and passed the Resolution in November, 1997, holding that the 4th defendant has no right whatsoever to use the name Ceylon and
India General Mission Church and authorized the executive
OS.4/2001 - 13 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 council to take whatever action in this matter, it deems, advisable. The executive council of the first defendant, again, met in January, 1980 and passed Resolution, holding that the first defendant cannot recognize the 4the defendant as Ceylon and India General Mission Church and found Statement of faith, the constitution of 4th defendant, defers sub-statically from the approved constitution of the first defendant and advised the 4the defendant to refrain from using the very name.
The Resolutions of the first defendant are communicated to the plaintiffs by letter dated 23-1-1980 and marking a copy to the then secretary of the 4the Defendant and addressing the same to him. These Minutes and the Resolutions of the first defendant establishes that the fourth defendant has absolutely no communication whatsoever with the affairs and properties of the plaintiffs. The 4th defendant is a Pseudo Body floated for the other purposes, which are beyond the comprehension of any person, following and has faith in Christianity and the Christian
Order.
The plaintiffs submit that undaunted to, the 4th defendant, filed a suit against the then Pastor late. B. Yesurathnam in
O.S.No. 122/1984 on the file of Hon‘ble District Munsif,
Hindupur, to declare the defendant in the suit, is not entitled to conduct prayers and obtained temporary injunction. On appeal, the Hon‘ble Additional District Judge, Hindupur, in C.M.A. 9/85, by its Judgment dated 1.5.1985 categorically found that the 4th defendant has not been recognized as an appeal, the Hon‘ble
Additional District Judge, Hindupur, in C.M.A. 9/1985, by its
Judgment dated 1.5.1985 categorically found that the 4th
OS.4/2001 - 14 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 defendant has not been recognized as an affiliated body to it and the first defendant has continuously recognized Rev. late B.
Yesurathnam as Pastor. This finding establishes that it is the plaintiff alone that is the Field Committee of the first defendant.
The 4th defendant unsuccessfully fields a Revision before the
Hon‘ble High Court of A.P. in C.R.P. No.2112/1985. The plaintiffs
submit that the suit O.S.No.122/1984 filed by the 4th defendant against late. B. Yesurathnam was dismissed.
The plaintiffs submit that the first defendant field O.S.No.
205/1990 on the file of learned District Munsif, Hindupur and
O.S.No. 4/1997 on the file of Hon‘ble Subordinate Judge,
Hindupur, claiming reliefs against the 4the defendant and others, when they tried to interfere with the properties of the plaintiffs.
In the pleadings of the aforesaid suits, the first defendant categorically admitted that the 1st plaintiff alone is validly constituted filed Committee at Hindupur and the first plaintiff is the custodian and managing the properties of the Mission, with possession and further averring that the 4th defendant or any have absolutely no right whatsoever to interfere with the management of the aforesaid properties by plaintiffs. This indicates that the 1st plaintiff is duly constituted for field committee of the 1st defendant mission at Hindupur in accordance with the constitution, articles, Principles and practice at Hindupur with a right to manage, use and administrate properties at Hindupur with possession.
During the pendency of the suits, the 15th defendant seems to have intervened in the matter. He is working in secretariat, Hyderabad and yielding lot of political clot by virtue
OS.4/2001 - 15 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 of himself, working as Personal Secretary to the Ministers of this
District. The defendants 5 to 14 conspired and colluded with the 11th defendant. The plaintiffs learnt through the recitals in the sale deeds executed by defendants 5 to 12 in favour of 16th defendant, attested by 15th defendant, by virtue of some agreement dt.8-8-1998, the first defendant has entered into a compromise with the defendants 4 to 12 and created rights in them and extinguished the rights in the properties of the plaintiffs, the defendants 5 to 12 sold the property mentioned in the schedule ‘B‘ of plaint as item No. 1 to 3 in favour of 16the defendant under registered sale deed dated 22.3.2000 and 25.5.2000 for consideration of Rs. 1,90,500/- and Rs. 2,72,000/- respectively. Similarly, defendant Nos. 2, 3, D-13 and D-14 representing D-1 Mission, sold the properties mentioned in item
No. 4 and 5 of plaint ‗B‘ Schedule in favour of Defendants 17 and 18 under two registered sale deeds, dated 16.2.2001 and registered as document Nos. 508/2001 and 509/2001 for consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- and Rs.1,35,000/- respectively.
The defendants 2, 3 and 13 and 14, and D-4 to D-12 absolutely, have no right to sell the aforesaid properties. The sales of the properties by D-2, D-3 and D-13 and D-14 and D-4 to D-12 are against the constitution. The sale deeds in favour of D-16, D-17 and D-18 are duly attested by D-7, D-11, D-9 and D-15 similarly, on 10-9-1999, D-4 represented by it‘s the then
President, viz, P.D. Paranjyothi, S/o. P.I. Ralley executed a registered lease deed for 25 years in favour of D-19 K.R.
Chandramohan, in respect of some portion of open site in T.S.
No. 27, which is shown as item no.6 of plaint ‗B‘ Schedule. The
OS.4/2001 - 16 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 said lease deed was duly attested by D-7, D-9, D-11 and D-15 another witness. The lease amount covered under lease deed is
Rs.1,50,000/-. The above said transactions inter se between defendants are not at all binding on first plaintiff church. The defendants 4 to 12 also managed the suits filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.4/1997 on the file of learned Subordinate
Judge, Hindupur and O.S.No.205/97 on the file of learned district
Munsif, Hindupur, got dismissed for default.
The plaintiffs submit that the alleged agreement is a fabricated and forged document. Even otherwise, such an agreement cannot cover any rights over defendants 4 to 12 or takes away the rights of plaintiffs. The said agreement will can, neither create not confer any rights on defendants 4 to 12 or takes away or extinguish the rights of plaintiffs over properties at Hindupur and the affairs of the first plaintiff. The document is not binding and totally inadmissible in evidence. The plaintiffs further submit that the alleged signatories of the compromise have absolutely no authority whatsoever to blind the first plaintiff and the first defendant and the action is ultra virus of the constitution. The plaintiffs submit that as submitted supra, the plaintiff alone is having a right of purchasing and disposing the properties of the Mission and Field Committee with the concurrence of other councils of the Mission. There are as many
as 64 councils of the Mission, whose approval is necessary for
disposal of the properties, Any transaction between Defendants 2 and 3 and 5 to D-14 and D-16 to D-19 is not binding on the plaintiffs and first defendant Mission as the same is ultra virus of the constitution principles and practice of the first defendant
OS.4/2001 - 17 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 mission. The recitals in the sale deeds in favour of D-16, D-17 and D-18 and lease deed I favour of D-19, with regard to delivery of possession are totally incorrect and possession of properties covered under the aforesaid sale deeds and lease deeds, continues to be with the first plaintiff church.
The plaintiffs submit that the value of the properties covered under the sale deeds in favour of D-16, D-17 and D-18 and property covered under the sale deeds in favour of D-16, D- 17 and D-18 and property covered under lease deed in favour of
D-19, is worth more than Rupees Fifty Lakhs, any willing purchaser would have easily purchased the properties covered under these documents for a sum of Rupees fifty lakhs. On this short ground itself, the transactions aforesaid becomes unconscionable and liable to be set said. The plaintiffs further submit that the defendants 2, 3, 5 to 14 brought into the said sale deeds and lease deed interfere with plaintiffs right over the properties. The plaintiffs submit that the defendants 2, 3, 5 to 14 have absolutely no right, title whatsoever over the plain schedule property and as such they cannot convey any better title on the defendants 16, 17, 18 and 19. The purchaser- defendants did not get any better title than what alleged vendors have. The plaintiffs submit that can ignore the said sale deeds and lease deed and there is no need for them to seek cancellation of the sale deeds dt.22.3.2000 and 25.5.2000 and 16.2.2001 and lease deed dated 10.9.1999. But, as the sale deeds and lease deeds adverts that the persons concerned with the first defendant created some right over the property and on that basis the sale deed is brought into existence by defendants
OS.4/2001 - 18 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 5 to 12 for the disposal or dealing with the property, the plaintiff should obtain concurrence of the first defendant and other councils. The plaintiffs are advised that they are bound under
General law to have sale deeds set aside with a view to remove an obstacle standing in the way of the plaintiff and as such the plaintiffs are obliged to sue the defendants for cancellation of the sale deeds dated 22.3.2000 and 25.5.2000 and 16.2.2001 and lease deed dated 10.9.1999 executed by defendants 5 to 12 and
D-2, D-3 and D-14 in favour of defendants 16, 17, 18 and 19.
The plaintiffs also submit that the defendants 2 to 13 open the basis of fabricated, untenable and unsustainable 4 to 12 on the other hand are proclaiming to interference with the affairs of plaintiff and are making attempts to interference with the affairs of plaintiff and are making attempts to interfere with the plaintiffs right and possession of properties. It is also submitted that the defendants 5 to 12 are desperate persons having the support of rich and powerful and political elements, the plaintiffs are helpless and persons following the true Christian spirit and faith. The plaintiffs apprehend that, the defendants may take law into their own hands at any time and interfere with the affairs of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs submit that the plaintiffs file suit in O.S.No.118/2000 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court,
Hindupur. When the defendants 4 to 12 tried to interfere with the prayers in the Church situate in Survey No.27 locally called
Mission compound Boarding Home and the matter relating to temporary injunction is pending before the Hon‘ble High court in
C.R.P.No. 3577/2001 and the Hon‘ble High Court is pleased to grant status quo on the date of filling of the suit. The plaintiffs
OS.4/2001 - 19 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 submit that the Hon‘ble Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, is pleased to appoint a commissioner and the observations of the commissioner establishes that the building is used for conducting congregation and offering prayers to Lord. The plaintiffs submit that the defendants are bent upon interfering with the affairs of the plaintiff under the guise of alleged compromised.
The plaintiffs submit that D-4 to D-12 by creating false and fictitious documents in collusion with D-2, D-3, D-14, are bent upon questioning the right of the plaintiff, to perform their religious duties and to use and manage the aforesaid property of first plaintiff and first defendant situate at Hindupur in accordance with the constitution, principle and practice which are binding on first plaintiff and first defendant and as such, the plaintiffs are obliged to file that suit for declaration of first plaintiff and first defendant and as such, the plaintiffs are obliged to file that plaintiff‘s right to manage the properties of first defendant Mission, situate at Hindupur and for cancellation of sale deeds and lease deed as aforesaid and for consequential relief of injunction and other reliefs.
The defendant No.7 Dinakar died during the pendency of the suit who was the Secretary of D.4 Society and the defendant
No.20 was elected and appointed as Secretary of D.4.
representing D.4 association as its Secretary.
It is submitted that some persons who are un-concerned with the affairs of D.1 mission and falsely representing themselves as secretary and chairmen of D.1 mission got created an agreement to sell dt.1.6.1998 in favour of D.21 to
D.26 in respect of Item No.3 of the plaint A schedule property
OS.4/2001 - 20 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 and got filed a suit in O.S.16/2005 on the file of District Judge
Court, Ananthapuramu and obtained an exparte decree inter se between them and tried to disturb the possession of the plaintiff under the guise of an exparte decree in O.S.16/2005 which was obtained by D.21 to D.26 by playing fraud on the plaintiffs. It is submitted that D.1 or anybody representing D.1 did not have any semblance of right to deal with the property of the plaintiff in T.S.No.27 mentioned as Item No.3 of Plaint ‗A‘ schedule.
Similarly the Defendant No.21 to D6 will not get any right to deal with the property and the sale transaction inter se between D.21 to D.27 is not binding on the 1st plaintiffs Church. The defendant
No.27 could not get any better title from his vendors, since the vendors of the D.27 themselves are not having title and possession over the property. Similarly the Defendants No.28 and 29 are not competent to represent the D.1 mission as chairmen and secretary respectively and they are nothing to do with the affairs of D.1 mission. They have no competency to execute any document much less an agreement to sell in favour of D.30 to D.32 in respect of the properties of 1st plaintiff church.
Similarly the exparte collusive decree obtained by D.30 to 32 in collusive with D.28 and 29 is not binding on the first plaintiff church and the same will not take away the rights of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. On account of the decree in O.S.16/2005 and O.S.45/2010 a Clog is created on the title and possession of the 1st plaint church over the plaint schedule property. The defendants No.21 to 32 are most likely trespass into the property under the color of taking possession under a fraudulent decree passed in O.S.16/2005 and in
OS.4/2001 - 21 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
O.S.45/2010. Even till today the possession of the plaintiff over
the suit schedule properties are not disturbed by any means.
The possession is with the 1st plaintiff alone. Hence, the suit.
3.The plaintiffs filed rejoinder stating that the amended written statement filed by the defendants No.17 and 18 by adding para 6(a), 6(b), 6(c) and 6(d) by adding to already filed written statement as per the orders of this Hon‘ble Court in
I.A.No. 1126/2007 dated 11.12.2002 do not disclose any case in favour of the defendants No.17 and 18 or in favour of the 1st defendant and the amendment will not take away the existing rights and possession of the plaintiffs church in administration of the properties of the church in accordance with the original constitution, principles and practice of the 1st defendant mission at the time of its formation in India. All the allegations are self serving testimonials of the defendants No.17 and 18 in order to claim non-existing rights in their favour.
4.The defendants No.1 to 3, 13 and 14 filed written statement. The averments of the written statement in brief are as follows:
The averment in para 3 of the plaint that the 1st defendant was found initially in the year, 1893 and was incorporated on 12.3.1928. Subsequently, it is also registered as Limited Company under the Indian Companies Act etc. The defendants 2, 3, 13 and 14 are the Directors of the 1st defendant.
The allegation in para 4 that the 1st plaintiff is a permanent body and its Deacon Board Members are elected once in two years in accordance with the rules framed by the 1st
OS.4/2001 - 22 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 defendant-Mission under the name and style of C.I. & G.M.
Telugu Churches Councils, 1995 is not correct. It is only a temporary body and that too only for the purpose of maintenance of the local Church. The plaintiffs cannot claim that it is a permanent body and also claim any right over the properties of the 1st defendant.
The allegation in para 5 that the 1st defendant has purchased the landed property at Hindupur under various sale deeds and the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the landed property. The allegation that the aforesaid properties were acquired under various sale deeds with the approval of the then
Field Committee at Hindupur is not correct and that the above aforesaid properties have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the 1st plaintiff for and on behalf of the 1st defendant in accordance with the constitution, principles and practice is not correct. At no point of time the so-called field committee at Hindupur was in possession and enjoyment of the property on behalf of these defendants. It is the 1st defendant in possession and enjoyment of the suit property with absolute rights.
The allegation in para 6 that the plaintiff‘s right to possession, right to management and right to control over the properties mentioned above are vested with the Field Committee alone including the right to purchase and to dispose of the property and in cases where the purchasing and disposing of the properties involving large of money, the 1st plaintiff has to take concurrence of the others Councils of the Mission is not correct.
The plaintiffs have nothing to do with that. The allegation that
OS.4/2001 - 23 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 as per the constitution, the 1st plaintiff alone is the De Jure
Owner of all the properties at Hindupur subject to the control of the 1st defendant Mission in the matters relating to financial and administrative control is not correct. The further allegation that no one else including the 1st defendant mission have absolutely any right to deal with the above properties with whims and fancies to frustrate the aims and objects of the 1st defendant mission is not correct.
The allegation in para 7 of the plaint that in Survey
No.101-1 an extent of Ac.3.80 cents is covered with tombs is true. It is the 1st defendant that is given for the community to make use of the land is burial ground and it is not the plaintiffs and they have no right over it. The 1st plaintiff and Members are given permission only to worship in the Church and except that they have nothing to do with the properties of the 1st defendant.
On account of failure of maintaining boarding home it was forced to close the same as there was no sufficient strength to maintain the boarding home. Previously there was only one church and there was only Deacon Board under the control of the then
Pastor B.Yesurathnam. Subsequently, misunderstandings arose among the members of the Church. On account of the same another church was also formed. The plaintiffs have become the
Committee of one Church and the defendants 4 to 12 have formed another committee for another Church. Similarly there were some disputes as mentioned in paras 10, 11, 12, 13 and
14. But overall it was concluded that the 1st defendant was the owner of the properties.
OS.4/2001 - 24 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
The allegation in para 15 of the plaint is between the plaintiffs on one side and the defendants 4 to 12 on the other hand and these defendants are nothing to do with this. It is true that the suit filed by Yesurathnam and others in
O.S.No.122/1984 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur
dismissed.
The allegation in para 17 of the plaint regarding filing of
O.S.No.205/1990 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur,
O.S.No.4/1997 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur is true.
But the interpretation of the plaint pleadings regarding management of the properties etc., by the 1st plaintiff is not correct. At no point of time the property of the 1st defendant is given in possession of the 1st plaintiff either for management or for any other purpose. On account of disputes the 1st defendant
Mission agreed to settle the Court cases accordingly an agreement was entered into on 8.8.1998 between the 1st defendant Company and the defendants 4 to 12. The plaintiffs, who have nothing to do with the properties of the 1st defendant have no right to raise any dispute.
The allegation in para 18 of the plaint that the defendants 2 and 13 and 14 have absolutely no right to deal with the properties of the 1st defendant is not correct. There are
Chairman and Directors of the Company and they have every right to deal with the properties. In fact it is true that the items 4 and 5 are sold to D.17 and D.18 under registered sale deed
dated 16.2.2001 under registered document members
508/2001, 509/2001. They are valid and possession is also given to them. It is true that O.S. 4/1997 and O.S.205/1990 got
OS.4/2001 - 25 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 dismissed only after the agreement dated 8.8.1998 was entered into between the 1st defendant and the defendants 4 to 12.
The allegations in para 19 of the plaint are not correct and they are denied. In fact the plaintiffs have no right to challenge the said agreement. No Court fee is paid to set aside the said agreement. The agreement consists of the entire property of the Church. But the suit is filed only for the limited extent. If at all the plaintiffs want to challenge that agreement, all the properties covered under the agreement must be the subject matter of the present suit and Court fee must be paid on the value of the entire property. On that simple ground, the present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
The allegations in para 20 of the plaint are not correct and the plaintiffs who are not the owners of the property have no right to question the sale transactions of the 1st defendant.
The defendants 2 and 3 and 13 and 14 are included in the suit in their individual capacity. But in the cause title it is referred as
Raja Selvaraj (D-2) is the Chairman of the 1st defendant. The defendants 2 an 3 and 13 and 14 are also Directors of the 1st defendant. The present suit against the individual member of defendants 2 and 3 and 13 and 14 without referring them as
Directors is not maintainable. They are the Chairman and
Directors of the 1st defendant and accordingly they are acting.
All the acts of the defendants 1 to 3 and 13 and 14 are in accordance with the rules and principles guided by the constitution of the 1st defendant and all acts are followed. These defendants are nothing to do with the proceedings of O.S.
118/2000 as they are not parties to the same.
OS.4/2001 - 26 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
The allegations in para 21 of the plaint are also not correct and they are denied. Overall reading of the plaint discloses that without seeking relief againstthe 1st defendant through whom the plaintiffs are claiming so called right to file the present suit againstthe 1st defendant and its body who are the absolute owners. In fact the 1st defendant through its body have been selling the properties for maintenance of the 1st defendant Mission. They are making use of the funds for the purpose of maintenance of Churches, construction of buildings and for upliftment of the 1st defendant Mission.
The plaintiffs are put to strict proof of all the allegations that are not expressly admitted herein.
Finally, the defendants No. 1 to 3 and 13 and 14 prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
5.The defendant No.20 filed written statement stating that the D.4 is adopting the written statement filed by D.4 to
D.12 and further adds that in the year 2005 Cyclone & India
General Mission Church elected a new body and the following members were elected as:
1. President : B.Manohar
2. Vice-President : N.Manohar Prasad
3. Secretary : M.Elisha Prabhakar (D.20)
4. Joint Secretary : P.Suneel Raj Kumar
5. Treasurer : M.Yohan
6. Joint Treasurer : K.C. Stephen
7. K.Prasad Rao : E.C.Member
8. P.C. Joseph : E.C.Member
OS.4/2001 - 27 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
9. Ex-Officio Member : Poster N.Prabhakar
But the plaintiff impleaded only this defendant s D.20 and he did not implead any other office bearers of the Cyclone & India
General Mission Church.
Finally, this defendant prays to dismiss the suit.
6.The defendants No.16 and 19 filed written statement stating that they adopt the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants 4 to 12 and further stated as follows:-
The plaintiffs were and are not in possession of any of the properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. D.4 alone was and is in possession and control of all the properties of the Cyclone & India General Mission Church situated at
Hindupur. The defendant No.4 was and is the proper person to manage and to deal with the properties of the Cyclone & India
General Mission Church at Hindupur.
The allegation in para 18 of the plaint that the defendants 5 to 12 sold the property mention in schedule ‗B‘ of the plaint to the defendant No.16 under registered sale deeds
dated 22.3.2000 and 25.5.2000 is not correct. It is the
defendant No.4 that sold the property to this defendant under the registered sale deed dated 23.2.2000 and 25.5.2000 for a consideration of Rs.1,90,500/- and Rs.2,72,500/- respectively.
The defendant No.4 inducted the defendant No.16 into possession. The defendant No.16 spent consideration amount to construct compound wall around the land purchased by her. The transaction of purchase under the two sale deeds and
OS.4/2001 - 28 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 construction of the compound wall were done under the very nose of the plaintiffs 2 to 8. At no point of time the plaintiffs 2 to 8 raised any objection for taking possession and constructing compound wall. The plaintiffs, having kept quite when the defendant No.16 was spending good lot of money over the property purchased by her, are not entitled to raise any objection now. The plaintiffs are deemed to have acquiesced in the rights of the defendant No.16.
The allegation in para 18 of the plaint that the defendant
No.4 represented by its then President executed a registered lease deed for 25 years in favour of the defendant No.19 in respect of open site in T.S.No.27 are true and correct. The lease amount is not Rs.1,50,000/- but only Rs.600/- per month as stated in the lease deed itself. The amount of Rs.1,50,000/- mentioned in the lease deed is the approximate cost of the shops to be constructed by the defendant No.19. The defendant
No.19 spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- and constructed shop rooms and rented them out. The execution of the lease deed and the construction of the shops by the defendant No.19 was done under the very nose of the plaintiffs 2 to 8. They did not choose to raise any objection. The plaintiffs are not entitled to raise any objection with regard to possession of the defendant
No.19 at this late stage. The construction of the shops went on for considerable time but none of the plaintiffs 2 to 8 raised any objection. The defendant No.19 also leased out the shops to third parties.
OS.4/2001 - 29 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
The plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit against the defendants 16 and 19. They have no right to question the sales or lease.
The plaintiffs have filed the suit with the sold purpose of extorting money from these and other defendants.
There is no cause of action for the suit and the cause of action alleged in the plaint is false.
The defendants No.16 and 19 finally prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
7.The defendant No.27 filed written statement contending that the suit is bad in law and not maintainable. This defendant, while adopting the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants No.17 and 18, further submits as follows:-
This defendant is not a party to the proceedings in
O.S.No.518/1973, OS.No.320/1972, A.S.No.228/1977 and
A.S.No.230/1977 and the judgments and decrees are not
binding on this defendant. They have been filed for rival claims of Churches and they have nothing to do with the present suit.
It is submitted that the defendant No.1 alone has got exclusive and absolute rights over the properties and has right to alienate the properties. This defendant‘s predecessors in title derived right from the 1st defendant Mission alone. The plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the above suits. This defendant has also nothing to do with the suits O.S.No.122/1984, O.S.No.205/1990 and O.S.No.4/1997 and this defendant is not a party to the said suit. The findings and judgments of those suits are not binding on this defendant.
OS.4/2001 - 30 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
The allegation in para 21B of the plaint that the 1st defendantMission being falsely represented by some unconcerned persons as Secretary and Chairman got created an agreement of sale dated 1.6.1998 in favour of the defendants
No.21 to 26 in respect of item No.6, got filed a suit in
O.S.No.16/2005 on the file of Hon‘ble District Judge,
Ananthapuramu by playing fraud on the plaintiffs is all untrue.
Further the allegation that the defendants 21 to 26 got a fraudulent decree in O.S.No.16/2005 for item No.3 of the suit schedule is all untrue and false. The plaintiff got no locus standi to question the said decree. The allegation that this defendant will not get any right over the suit property and is being no possession and title over the item No.3 of the plaint schedule is all untrue. The said allegations are coined for the purpose of the above suit. The allegation that the defendants 21 to 32 are most likely to trespass into the property under the colour of long possession under a fraudulent decree passed in O.S.No.16/2005 and O.S.No.195/2010 is all untrue. The allegation that possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties is not disputed and the possession is with the plaintiff alone is untrue.
The defendant No.27 submitted that the 1st defendant neither had entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants 21 to 26 regarding the property with its particulars
Ward No.5, Block No.2, T.S.No.27 Extent Ac.0.35 cents out of
Ac.2.00 bounded by:-
East: Edga of Hindupur Muslims;
South: Hindupur – Parigi Road;
West: Hoarding Home Quarters and Community Hall;
OS.4/2001 - 31 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
North: Lane of Hindupur Municipality as on 1.6.1998, agreeing to sell the same for Rs.20,00,000/- received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as an advance and further agreed to receive the balance of sale consideration by the end of
May, 2003 and further to execute a registered sale deed, since the defendant No.1 did not receive balance of sale consideration and executed a registered sale deed, the defendants 21 to 26 are prone to file a suit in O.S.No.16/2005 on the file of the
District Judge, Ananthapuramu, againstthe 1st defendant herein
which ended in a decree, by their judgment dated 28.2.2006.
The Hon‘ble District Judge, on behalf of the 1st defendant herein i.e., judgment-debtor in that decree, had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendants 21 to 26 and further the defendants 21 to 26 filed E.P. for delivery of possession.
Possession was delivered to the defendants 21 to 26. Item No.2 shown is different from the property which this defendant has purchased by and it is in T.S.No.27. The very schedule furnished in the plaint is not correct and no such property exists.
It is submitted that this defendant had purchased the above said property which is shown in the decree schedule of
O.S.No.16/2005 from his vendor i.e., defendants 21 to 26 for a
valid consideration under a registered sale deed dated 26.3.2003 and took possession of the said property. The said property is in possession and enjoyment of this defendant.
The defendant No.27 submitted that the suit is highly barred by limitation. On this score alone the above suit is liable to be dismissed in limine. There is no cause of action and the cause of action mentioned in the plaint is not correct.
OS.4/2001 - 32 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Finally, the defendant No.27 prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
8.The defendants No.4 to 12 filed written statement, contending as follows:-
There is no such institution described as plaintiff No.1. It is true that the Ceylon and India General Mission Church,
Bangalore was registered under Companies Act of 1956 with
Regd. No. 608/1956. The description in the cause titles of the plaint that the plaintiff No. 1 was represented by its Deacon
Board President -cum-pastor Shalim Dass is false and frivolous.
Shalim Dass was never the President and Pastor of the Ceylon and India General Mission Church (Church Compound) Hindupur.
The Ceylon and India General Mission, Bangalore did not recognize the alleged pastor -cum-president K. Shalim Dass as pastor -cum-president of the Ceylon and India General Mission
Church (Mission Compound) Hindupur. The plaintiffs 2 to 8 have invented such recognition by the Ceylon and India General
Mission, Bangalore for the purpose of this suit.
The plaintiffs 2 to 8 in their individual or personal capacity had or have nothing to do with the Institution Ceylon and India
General Mission Church, Hindupur. The plaintiffs 2 to 8 have absolutely no place as plaintiffs in the suit.
The defendant No.5 is not the president of defendant
No.4. The defendant No.6 is the president of defendant No.4.
The defendant No.11 is the vice president of defendant No.4.
The defendant No.6 is not the Vice president. The only institution relating to the church, Mission compound and properly
OS.4/2001 - 33 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 elsewhere existing at Hindupur is the defendant No.4. It is only the defendant No.4 under the president-ship of defendant No.6, that is managing, the affairs of the church at Hindupur. The defendants 5 to 15 had or have absolutely no concern as individuals in the affairs of the church. The defendants 5 to 12 are not making any claim in their personal capacity to any of the properties of the church. The defendants 5 to 12 are only members of the Deacon Board which is the governing body of the defendant No.4. The defendants 5 to 12 ought not to have been made parties to the suit in their individual capacity. The suit has to be dismissed as against them in limine. The defendants 2, 3, 13, 14 and 15 also have no place in the suit in their individual names. They cannot also made as claim to the properties of the church in their individual capacity. Hence the suit is misconceived and improperly constituted. The plaintiffs 2 to 8 have no locus standi to file the suit in any capacity.
The pastor of a church is appointed by the Deacon Board.
He can never be the chairman or the president of the Deacon
Board. The pastor is a salaried post.
The plaintiffs are not competent to file the suit for cancellation of any of the deeds mentioned in the plaint. The reliefs 1 to 5 are mis-construed. The reliefs 1 to 5 are improperly undervalued on the basis of the allegations in para 20 of the plaint, which reads that the properties are worth more than Rs.50,00,000/-. The plaintiffs ought to have paid Court fee on the market value of the properties as on the date of suit and not on the value mentioned in the documents. Section 37
OS.4/2001 - 34 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 contemplates payment of Court fee on the full market value which according to plaintiffs is Rs.50 lakhs. The valuation of relief (a) must be commensurate with the value of the property and it should have been valued at Rs. 50 lakhs and Court fee paid on that value and not on notional value.
The allegation in para 3 of the plaint that even before that the Association was registered as Society on 12th November 1897 under Indian Societies Act, 1860 is not correct. It might have been registered under Societies Registration Act of 1860.
The allegations in para 3 of the plaint that the defendant
No.1 divided Mission filed into districts and filed committees and one such filed committee was constituted at Hindupur are not correct. There was and is no such filed committee at Hindupur.
The allegations in para 3 of the plaint that the first plaintiff duly constituted filed committee in accordance with the constitution, articles, principles and practice of the first defendant, Mission are absolutely false. The allegation in para 3 of the plaint that the plaintiff No.2 is the duly appointed pastor and plaintiffs 3 to 8 are the duly constituted committee of the
Deacon Board of the first plaintiff as per appointment orders and resolutions dated 25.9.1999 and 25.6.2000 are false and frivolous. The copies of those two documents are not furnished to any of the defendants. Those documents in all probability are manipulated and self serving documents created to buttress the false claim of the plaintiffs. There is no such institution as the first plaintiff and its Deacon Board.
OS.4/2001 - 35 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
The allegations in para 4 of the plaint are not correct. The first plaintiff is a non-existing body. Hence, the question of electing its Deacon Board once in two years in accordance with the rules framed by the first defendant under the name and style
C&I. G.M., Telugu Churches Council 1995 amending the previous
Rules, are not correct. The defendant No.4 frames its own rules and bylaws and conducts its elections in accordance with those rules. The defendant No.1 does not in any way control the administration of the Church at Hindupur. The other allegations in para 4 of the plaint that the first defendant frames the Rules are not correct.
The allegations in para 5 of the plaint that first defendant
Mission in pursuance of its Mission and out of the General Funds and designated funds purchased immovable landed properties in
S.Nos. 100-2, 101-1. T.S.No.26, T.S.No.39, T.S.No.27 and 35 under various registered sale deeds on different dates 01.12.1896, 21.06.1904 and 01.02.1900 etc., are not correct.
The lands were purchased by the Hindupur C&I.G. Mission
Church and for the benefit of Hindupur General Mission Church.
The first defendant had nothing to do with the purchase of any of those Survey Numbers. The then missionary Mr. Benzamin,
B.Davidson was then managing the affairs of Christians at
Hindupur. At that time the established office was only at
Bangalore and all the valuable documents were kept in safe custody at Bangalore. The allegations in para 5 of the plaint that the aforesaid properties were acquired under the above said various sale deeds with the concurrence and approval of the
OS.4/2001 - 36 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 then Field Committee at Hindupur are not correct. There was no such Field Committee at Hindupur then nor now. The allegations in para 5 of the plaint that the first plaintiff was in possession of the properties on behalf of the first defendant in accordance with the principles and practice are not correct. The first defendant in those days was controlling all the Churches that were brought into existence and encouraging the conduct of services in the churches with a view to spread Christianity in India. Thus, though the properties were purchased for and on behalf of a particular church, the overall management was with the central office at Bangalore but the properties always belonged to that church for which then were purchased.
The allegations in para 6 of the plaint that the right to possession, right to management and right to control over the properties vested with the field committee alone, including the right to purchase and to dispose of the property are not correct.
The allegations in para 7 of the plaint are not correct. Out of S.No.101-1, an extent of Ac.0-12 cents was sold by the defendant No.4 represented by its president and members of
Deacon Board to Officers Club under registered sale deed dated 01.04.1989 and delivered possession of the same to the purchaser. The officers club constructed a building with a compound wall and running an officers‘ club therein. The rest of the S.No.101-1 was fenced off by the defendant No.4 and is being used as cemetery. There are number of tombs in existence. The control of that cemetery was and is vesting in the defendant No.4. The cemetery is being maintained only by
OS.4/2001 - 37 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 the defendant No.4. The plaintiffs and or others have nothing to do with the S.No.101-1 or any other property owned by the church Hindupur.
The allegations in para 8 of the plaint that a destitute home for children of Christian community was established and free education was being given is true. That building has become very old and has become unfit now for human habitation. Hence, the defendant No.4 has taken up the repairs of that building. It has spent a good lot of amount for repairing it. The repairs are still going on. The sheltering of poor and destitute children was discontinued because of the dangerous condition of the building and not because of the reasons given in para 9 of the plaint. The alleged letter dated 13.05.1998 is a manipulated one and it is not addressed to any of the plaintiffs.
The dissidents and A. Selva Raj with a view to harm the interest of the defendant No.4 must have created the alleged resolution.
The allegations in para 10 of the plaint that one Yesu
Ratnam was the pastor of the first plaintiff church in accordance with the constitution and he continued to work as pastor of first plaintiff church till his death prior to 1973 are false. There was no such first plaintiff in existence wither then or now. Yesu
Ratnam died in 1996 to the best of the remembrance of the defendants.
The allegations in para 10 of the plaint that the defendants 7 to 11 and their followers and others of their group made serious objections in conducting prayers in the church by
Rev. Late B. Yesu Ratnam and the congregation led by him are
OS.4/2001 - 38 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 not correct. Rev. Late B. Yesu Ratnam sowed dissensions in the
General body and formed a group of his own and walked out of the church. Rev. Yesu Rathnam conducted prayers and Religious activities in utter disregard of the accepted principles and practice of the church at Hindupur. As a result Rev. B. Yesu
Ratnam lost his membership. The other allegations in para 10 of the plaint that the then secretary addressed a letter on 07.06.1984 to the first defendant Mission seeking permission to use the boys boarding home for conducting services are not correct. There was absolutely no need for conducting services at places other than the church. A good and proper building for the church was existing from a very long time and there was no need to shift the place of services. The very allegation that Rev.
B. Yesu Ratnam did not think of using the church building for holding services, establishes, that there was or is no first plaintiff in existence and that the first plaintiff is fictitious body. The first plaintiff had nothing to do with the dispute between Rev. Yesu
Ratnam and the defendant No.4. There were some disputes between Rev. Yesu Ratnam and the defendant No.4 for some time. Prakash Rao was a strong supporter of B. Yesu Ratnam and he was one of the persons who disassociated himself from the church and formed an opposition group with B. Yesu
Ratnam. All these letters and reply letters might have been brought into existence during those disputes. At any rate those letters and reply letters did not in any was concern with the plaintiffs.
OS.4/2001 - 39 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
The allegations in para 11 of the plaint are not correct and are denied by the defendants. At no point of time the first plaintiff had any connections with B. Yesu Ratnam.
The allegations in para 12 of the plaint are not correct.
The alleged letters dated 01.08.1995, 05.08.1996 and 15.05.1998 are only manipulated documents and they are not in any way concerned with the plaintiffs. There was absolutely nothing done on the ground to construct a church in the Mission compound as alleged in para 12 of the plaint. The plaintiffs did not spend anything. The boarding home was also not repaired nor any amount spent on the boarding home by the plaintiffs.
The allegations in para 13 of the plaint that Rev. B. Yesu
Ratnam, the then pastor of the first plaintiff was appointed by the first defendant and he has been carrying out the objects and aims of the Mission with all earnestness dedication and devotion are false. The first plaintiff had absolutely nothing to do with
B.Yesu Ratnam. Rev. B. Yesu Ratnam was appointed as pastor in 1962 and his appointment was confirmed on 11.08.1964 by the Deacon Board of the Hindupur C&I.G. Mission Church.
Hindupur C&I.G. Mission church itself was converted into defendant No.4. Hence the defendant No.4 had its existence in the form of Hindupur C&I.G. Mission Church right from the beginning. The original minutes Book with the defendant No.4, establishes the fact of conversion of Hindupur C& I.G. Mission church into defendant No.4.
The allegations in para 13 of the plaint are not correct.
Troubles started with regard to election of the Deacon Board. As
OS.4/2001 - 40 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 a result some suits were filed. Those suits have nothing to do with the first plaintiff or with the administration of the properties of the church at Hindupur. Those judgments do not and cannot have any bearing on the control and custody of the properties of the church of Hindupur.
The allegations in para 14 of the plaint are not correct.
The plaintiffs in those suits and the defendants 5 to 12 herein approached the courts for redressal of their grievance.
The allegations in para 14 of the plaint ―that instead, as they have bent upon grabbing the property for their own selfish ends, the defendants 5 to 12 herein and the plaintiff in O.S. 320 and 519/1973, registered, the Society with registration
No.148/78‖ are not correct. The Society was registered with the sole purpose of getting the trackless affairs of the church to put on rails. There was or is no sinister motive to grab any property of the church. All the other allegations in para 14 of the plaint are denied. The plaintiffs are marking false allegations with a view to malign the defendant No.4. There were conflict of opinions between the first defendant and the 4th defendant. As a result of that of that conflict there were claims and counter claims as between the first defendant and the 4th defendant. On account of the conflicts and generation of heat, the office bearer of the 1st defendant might have obliged the opponents of defendant No.4 with false and fictitious letters. It resulted in filing suits against the defendant No.4. The first defendant and the 4th defendant later on resolved all conflicts at the intervention of well wishers of both. The 4th defendant and the
OS.4/2001 - 41 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 first defendant entered into a compromise on the 8th day of
August 1998 and resolved all their disputes. In the compromise the first defendant admitted the fact that the 4th defendant was the absolute owner of the properties noted in schedule 'B' of the compromise deed. The compromise effaced all the previous transactions. Only the terms of compromise alone prevailed by overriding all the previous transactions including the letters that were exchanged. It was also agreed specifically that all suits and proceedings pending in regard to the church should be withdrawn or terminated. As a result, all the proceedings pending then were withdrawn.
All the allegations in para 15 and 16 of the plaint are irrelevant and at any rate they are not in any way concerned with the plaintiffs or plaint schedule properties. The defendants do not admit any of those allegations.
The allegations in para 17 of the plaint that ―the first defendant categorically admitted the first plaintiff alone is validly constituted filed committee at Hindupur and the first plaintiff is the custodian and managing the properties of the Mission with possession‖ are false and frivolous. Those suits did not mention about the existence of the first plaintiff at all. The plaintiffs are deliberately making false and frivolous allegations. The agreement of compromise dated 8.8.1998 specifically ordained the first defendant herein to withdraw O.S.4/1997,
O.S.205/1990 and O.S.58/1997 and also Criminal Revision
petition No.1/1993. In view of that, all suits were dismissed.
The contentions of first defendant herein in those suits cannot
OS.4/2001 - 42 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 carry any evidentiary value. It is nowhere stated in those plaints that the first plaintiff herein is a duly constituted field committee of the Hindupur C&I.G. Mission Church. The alleged 1st plaintiff was nowhere in the picture.
The allegations in para 18 of the plaint that ―during the pendency of the suits, the defendant No.15 seems to have intervened in the matter, that he is wielding clout by reason of his working as personal secretary to the ministers, that the defendants 5 to 14 colluded and conspired with defendant No.15, that the plaintiffs learnt through the recitals in the sale deeds executed by defendants 5 to 12 in favour of 16th defendant, attested by the 15th defendant by virtue of some agreement
dated 8.8.1998‖ are not correct. The 15th defendant had
nothing to do with the compromise between the defendant No.1 and defendant No.4. The compromise was effected by well wishers of both parties and due realization by the defendant
No.1 and defendant No.4 that bickering between them did not promote peace and harmony in the community. The clout or influence of defendant No.15 had nothing to do with that compromise. The defendant No.15 did not enjoy any political clout nor did he misuse his position as P.S to any minister. The plaintiffs to sub serve their own interest are throwing dirt against everybody including defendant No.15. The compromise entered into by defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 is a true and genuine one. The plaintiffs had and have no locus standi to question the compromise.
OS.4/2001 - 43 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
The defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 did enter into a compromise on 08.08.1998 and resolved the disputes. They did not create any rights in defendant No.4 nor in defendants 5 to
12. The defendants 5 to 12 acted only as members of the
Deacon Board of defendant No.4. Absolutely no rights are created in defendants 5 to 12 in their individual capacity. The rights that defendant No.4 had, all along been having, were affirmed in the agreement of compromise dated 08.08.1998.
There was no creation of rights nor extinguishment of any rights of anybody, much less the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not have any rights at all to be extinguished. The allegations in para 18 of the plaint that defendants 5 to 12 sold the properties mentioned in 'B' schedule of the plaint as item No.1 to 3 in favour of 16th defendant under registered sale deeds dated 22.03.2000 and 25.05.2000 for a consideration of Rs. 1,90,500/- and Rs.2,72,000/- respectively are not correct. It was the defendant No.4 that sold the property. The allegations in para 18 of the plaint that the defendant No.1 sold the properties to defendants 17 and 18 under two registered sale deeds dated 16.02.2001 are correct. The allegations in para 18 of the plaint that the defendants 2, 3, 13 and 14 and 15 to 12 have no right to sell the aforesaid properties are being mis-concerted. The defendants 2, 3, 13, 14 and 5 to 12 did not sell any property in their personal capacity but the sales were effected by defendant
No.1 and defendant No.4. The then president Mr. P.D. Paran
Jypthi leased out the open site in T.S. No.27 at a monthly rental of Rs. 600/- and not for Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Rs. 1,50,000/- mentioned in the lease deed is the estimated cost of the
OS.4/2001 - 44 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 construction of shops by the lessee. The lessee should vacate the buildings constructed by him and deliver possession to defendant No.4 on the expiry of 25 years. The allegations that the above transactions in between the defendants are not binding on the plaintiff church and that the defendants 4 to 12 managed the suits filed by the first defendant to get them dismissed for default are not correct. The dismissal of the suits was in pursuance of the compromise entered into between defendants 1 and 4 on 08.08.1998. The question of any transaction not binding on the first plaintiff does not arise as the very first plaintiff is a fictitious one.
All the allegations in para 19 of the plaint are not correct and are denied. The agreement dated 08.08.1998 as already stated did not create any rights but only affirmed the rights that the defendant No.4 had from the beginning. The plaintiffs have no right to question any of the transactions mentioned in para 18 of the plaint. The defendants 16, 17, 18 and 19 are in actual physical possession of the properties they obtained under their respective documents. The defendant No.19 spent considerable amount, probability Rs.1,50,000/- in constructing the shops.
The other defendant obtained the required permission from the municipality and also from the Town Planning Authorities. It is sheer impudence on the part of the plaintiffs to allege that the defendants 16 to 18 are not in possession and the first plaintiff continues to be in possession. The defendant No.16 constructed compound walls.
OS.4/2001 - 45 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Having claimed the value of the properties to be
Rs.50,00,000/-, the plaintiffs are estopped from valuing the suit at Rs. less than 50 lakhs and adopting the values given in the documents. The section 37 A.P.C.F and S.V. Act does not permit such valuation.
The defendant No.4 sold the property for true and correct value. The sale deed was also executed for the correct value.
The sales are perfectly valid and binding on the defendant No.4 and all others.
All the allegations questioning the genuineness of the transactions in para 20 of the plaint are baseless and irresponsible. It is sheer impudence on the part of the plaintiffs to call defendants 5 to 12 desperate persons.
The plaintiffs 2 to 8 are people without ostensible means of living. They have been indulging in nefarious acts. The plaintiffs 2 to 8 filed the suit with a view to intimidate the defendants and extort monies from the defendants. The plaintiff
No.2 came to Hindupur about 3 years ago from Madanapalli and is struggling hard to maintain himself, previous to that, he was at Penukonda for about 3 years and he was forced to leave
Pendukonda because of his improper conduct. The plaintiff No.3 is a painter struggling hard to maintain himself. The plaintiff
No.6 is not a christian. He got a shop allotted to him as a member of schedule caste, in the Revenue shopping complex at
Hindupur. The plaintiffs 2 to 8 ganged up to blackmail the defendants.
OS.4/2001 - 46 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
The allegations in para 21 are false and frivolous. The plaintiffs had or have no right to perform any religious duties to use any property for conducting services within the Mission compound or other properties. The plaintiffs have no right to seek cancellation of any sale deed or lease deed. The plaintiffs are bound to seek declaration of title and also possession. Mere cancellation of sale deeds, even if granted, cannot give the plaintiffs, the right to take possession. The plaintiffs are bound to ask for the other reliefs.
The defendant No.4 is constructing a new church building in T.S.No.26 and 39 with all modern fittings by obtaining the necessary building license from the Hindupur municipality and in accordance with the plan approved by the Hindupur Municipality.
The defendant No.4 has already spent huge amounts and constructed the ground floor up to roof level. The immediate necessity is to put up the roof over the walls and pillars. This has to be done forth with as otherwise there is every likely hood of defendant No.4 sustaining heavy loss. The standing constructions bear eloquent testimony to the possession of the defendant No.4 and also to its authority to manage the affairs of the church. As things stand services are being conducted in the old church building from the time of its construction about 100 years ago. There is absolutely no need or necessity to conduct services in the old building used for poor boys home. The poor boys Home is unfit for services.
Some of the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.118/2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur against some of the defendants
OS.4/2001 - 47 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 for grant of permanent injunction in regard to holding services in poor boys home and possession. The Court was pleased to dismiss I.A.No.459/2000 for grant of temporary injunction. The plaintiffs filed C.M.A. No.3/2001 on the file Senior Civil Judge.
That was also dismissed on 31.07.2001. The plaintiffs have suppressed these facts.
To the knowledge of the plaintiffs, the defendant No.1 sold several plots in T.S.No.100-2 from 1999 to 2001. The purchasers are in actual physical possession of all those properties. The plaintiffs have not been questioning any of the alienations made earlier. The plaintiffs, having acquiesced in all those alienations, are estopped from questioning the sales in favour of the defendants 16 to 19 alone.
The defendant No.4 alone is lawfully constituted institution to manage every property of the church. The defendant No.4 had and has absolute right to acquire the properties for the church at Hindupur, and there is absolutely no need to seek the concurrence of any council of the Mission and much less of the 64 councils of the Mission. The defendant No.4 has its own independent existence and can deal with its properties to the best of the advantage of the institution. Every church is an independent institution and has been dealing with its properties in its properties in its own rights and to its best advantage.
The 1st defendant, time and again recognized the independent status of the defendant No.4. The defendant No.1 entered into compromise with defendant No.4 which in crystal
OS.4/2001 - 48 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 clear terms recognized the institution as such. Hence the allegation that the defendant No.4 has no right to deal with the property of the church are false and frivolous. At no point of time the plaintiff No.1 was recognized by the defendant No.1 nor by the defendant No.4.
There is no cause of action for the suit and the cause of action elaborately alleged in para 22 of the plaint is false and frivolous. The plaintiffs under the guise of the suit are trying to jeopardize the orderliness with which the church is being run now. The sole purpose of filing the suit is to create trouble and prevent the progress in the construction of the new church buildings. As everybody knows the old church building has become a century old. The existing church (a century old building) is not sufficient to accommodate all the Christians.
The valuations given in para 23 of plaint are not correct.
The plaintiffs with a view to evade payment of Court fee have given incorrect values. The plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed.
All the allegations which are not herein expressly admitted are denied. The plaintiffs, somehow managed to obtain some documents and filed a suit with false allegations to blackmail the defendant No.4.
Hence, the defendants No.4 to 12 prayed that the Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs.
9.The defendants No.17 and 18 filed written statement contending that the suit is bad in law and not maintainable.
OS.4/2001 - 49 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
These defendants submit that they are adopting the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and 13 and 14 and further submit as follows:
These defendants are bona fide purchasers of the property with specific boundaries in Survey No.100-2 under two different registered sale deeds dated 16.2.2001. The contents of the said sale deeds may be read as part and parcel of this statement. These defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the property purchased by them. These defendants submit that the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the property purchased by these defendants and these defendants have purchased the property from original owners. The plaintiffs have no manner of right and title or possession over the schedule mentioned property. They have no right to file any suit and only to extract money from these defendants, the present suit is filed. In fact these defendants have collected all materials and raised necessary funds for the purpose of construction of buildings. Knowing pretty well about the same, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit only to delay the proceedings. The loss of these defendants must be made good by the plaintiffs since the present suit is fictitious one and filed with an intention to delay the proceedings. These defendants have purchased the property after due enquiry with the persons concerned. The plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit. Even as per the allegations in the plaint, the plaintiffs themselves are claiming through 1st defendant. When that be the case the plaintiffs have no right to challenge the transactions made by the 1st defendant. Apart from the compromise made in CRP 1/1993
OS.4/2001 - 50 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
dated 3.11.1998 in the Court of Additional District Judge,
Ananthapuramu. The 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the property as the same was purchased under registered sale deeds as stated in the plaint itself. The 1st defendant has utilized the construction amount of these defendants for the purpose of construction of a Church and other developments for the upliftment of their community including the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant has sold other properties in other places like
Penukonda, Madakasira and other places where the 1st defendant own property.
The defendants No.17 and 18 further submitted that the plaintiffs have not challenged the sale transactions of the 1st defendant and other properties, but the suit is filed only for the property of these defendants and others which has absolutely no value when compared to the property of theirs concerned. Even on that simple ground, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The suit for partial relief of the transactions is not maintainable. The major portion of the adjacent property, was sold to 3rd parties.
These sale transactions are not challenged. These defendants have submitted Encumbrance Certificate for the suit survey number in injunction petition. That clearly shows that there are other transactions also. Hence, the present suit as framed is not maintainable.
These defendants submit that the plaintiffs are the
Deacon Board appointed by the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs have no right in the suit property. On the other hand the plaintiffs are admitting that the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property. No relief is sought for against the 1st
OS.4/2001 - 51 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 defendant in the suit. Then the question of challenging the sale transactions of first defendant does not arise and on that simple ground, the suit is liable to be dismissed. No relief can be sought for against these defendants.
The plaintiffs are put to strict proof of all the allegations that are not expressly admitted herein.
It is submitted that the defendants 17 and 18 made extensive enquiries regarding the 1st defendant‘s right to alienate properties in favour of third parties. Their enquiries also reveal that the 1st defendant‘s company was registered under
Indian Companies Act 7/1913 and the Articles of Association clinchingly show that the administration of the company lies with the Executive council appointed by the conference consisting of three or more members which shall from time to time appoint a secretary and a Treasurer and may vest in the Secretary and the Treasurer for the time being respectively such powers and duties as may be thought expedient and shall meet from time to time to transact business, the majority of the members of the members of the Executive council shall from a quorum. Members of Executive council shall hold office for four years, and shall retire one annually, in rotation such retiring member to be eligible for immediate re-election by the Annul Conference. Any vacancy during the year shall be filled by nomination by the remaining members of the Executive council, said nomination to be ratified at the next succeeding Annual conference. Every member of the Executive council shall be deemed to be a
Director within the meaning of the Indian Companies Act.
Relating to other aspects Articles 6 to 13 deal as follows:-
OS.4/2001 - 52 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 (6)A general meeting shall be held once a year at such time and place as may be prescribed by the council which meeting shall be called the Annual conference and be regardered as an ordinary General Meeting. At least ten days notice shall be given by the Secretary specifying the place and day of meeting.
(7)The council may, when the need arises, an extraordinary General Meeting or five members in writing may as the council to call for an extraordinary
General Meeting.
(8)Every General Meeting shall be called a conference.
(9)A quorum at a meeting shall consist of ten members.
(10)Every full member shall have one vote.
(11)The members present shall elect a Chairman for the meeting.
(12)A minute book shall be kept and entries therein made by the Secretary or some other person appointed for the purpose by the Mission.
(13)The accounts of the Missions shall be audited annually, the calendar year being regarded as the financial year.
It is submitted that whatever earlier principles and constitutions were there, they deemed to have been extinguished.
It is submitted that the said company possessed of various immovable properties and assets situated inter alia in
Coimbatore Salem, Dharmapuri and Neelagiri districts in Tamil
Nadu and in Ananthapur district of Andhra Pradesh and the city
OS.4/2001 - 53 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 of Bangalore and district in Karnataka in Gondy and Basthi
District of Uttar Pradesh are being administered by the
Secretary, Directors and the executive council. It is also submitted that a lot of properties have been alienated by the company at various places by the Minutes of Board of Directors.
One such minutes signed by the then Chairman and the
Secretary, H.George W.Mc Cormick, dated 22.01.1974 is as follows:-
It is hereby resolved by the Directors of the Ceylon and
India General Mission to confer on and execute in favour of
Mr. B.E. Tozer, A General power of Attorney authorizing him to sell, transfer or dispose of any or all of the Mission properties situated in the Hindupur, Dharmavarm,
Madakasira, Penukonda, Kalyanadurg and Kadiri taluk of
Ananthapur district, Andhra Pradesh, and in the city of
Bangalore and district as well as in the city of Mysore,
Karnataka, at his discretion, for such price and to sign the necessary documents relating thereto on behalf of the
Mission. It is further resolved that in respect of these transactions, the General Power of Attorney in favour of
Mr. B.E. Tozer be signed by two Directors of the Mission,
W.G. Nelson and another and the Secretary, and registered by the Registrar in Bangalore.
It is submitted that subsequently a power of Attorney was given to B.E. Tozer for alienation of properties in pursuance of the resolution of Board of Directors on 8.11.1978. In pursuance of the said power of Attorney, B.E. Tozer had
OS.4/2001 - 54 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 alienated vast properties over all India and also in Ananthapur district. The plaintiffs are well aware of the said alienations. It is submitted that the Board of Directors or the Executive Council never authorized at any stage to carry out the properties of the company at Hindupur. The plaintiffs have nothing to do with the activities of the 1st defendant. Since the 1st defendant is registered under Indian Companies Act to look into the very objectivities and the constitution of the company. The plaintiffs are neither Directors not General Board Members. Even otherwise, they are at liberty to challenge the resolutions in appropriate Forum and see that the company is dissolved. It is submitted that this court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the company‘s activities which is registered under the Indian
Companies Act. It is also submitted that the assets are vested with the company and it is for the Registrar to verify the audit reports. Even the very Certificate issued by the Registrar of
Companies, dated 12-3-1928 discloses that it is the intention of the association to apply its profits and income to promote those purpose and that no dividends are payable to its members.
Hence, the administration of the Company can be challenged so far as the appreciation of funds are concerned by the competent authority before competent Forum. The company is not debarred from alienating the properties. The company will have its own checks and counter checks. It is submitted that the assets of the company are not attached to any Mission, Church or any Religious Institutions. If the assets belong to a particular
Charitable Institution or Religious Institution attach to any particular Temple or Church, any devotees or member of that
OS.4/2001 - 55 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Church can question the appropriation or misappropriation subject to its Bylaws. It is submitted that the plaintiffs were not at all recognized as the agents of the 1st defendant. If so, they could have challenged the resolutions of the 1st defendant company at various points of time and reported the matter to the Registrar of Companies. Even assuming but not admitting that the 1st defendant‘s company even if has directed the plaintiffs to look after the properties at Hindupur, it does not mean that they have checks and counter checks over the transactions of the 1st defendant‘s company. Despite the fact remains that the company by its appropriate resolutions has been spending huge amounts all over the world were ever the company has got its branches for noble purposes and achieving its drift of carrying its Mission. Hence, it is submitted that this court has no jurisdiction.
It is submitted that the plaintiffs are so interested in the company's properties, they ought to have challenged number of alienations transacted by the 1st defendant. It is submitted that the plaintiffs know pretty well that the 1st defendant had sold away Ac. 6-10.31 cents to various purchasers of its properties at
Hindupur. It is submitted that on 11-12-1999 one Jonna
Rajendra Prasad and M.Maheswara Naidu had purchased Ac.2.74 cents in S.No. 100-2 under registered sale deeds dated 10.12.1999 and 11.12.1999. Likewise, one Pariki Shameer
Basha of Kadiri had purchased Ac.0-69.31 cents in S. No. 100-2, likewise, one Mohammad Ghouse, Syed Mahaboob Basha, Shaik
Musthafa, G.Vijayalakshmi, G.Nageswari, Dr.S.Ravindranath
Reddy, K.Aruna, P.Suseela, M.Henna Usha Indrani,
OS.4/2001 - 56 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
S.Suryakantham, residents of Kadiri, B.Habeeb Prem Sagar of
Hindupur, B.Nirmala, D.Sasikala, Beddi Kumar and Sreedhar
Reddy purchased various extents in S. No. 100-2 of Hindupur from the 1st defendant‘s company under various sale deeds in the year 1999. Likewise, the defendants 17 and 18 also purchased in S.No.100-2. If at all the plaintiffs are acting
honestly, they are bound to challenge all these transactions and
all these transactions are only in S. No. 100-2 and 101-1A which are shown as items 1 and 2 of the plaint ‗A‘ schedule. It is submitted that all these persons are proper and necessary parties for proper adjudication of the above matter. Hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On this core also, the above suit is liable to be dismissed in limine. Since there are number of alienations and the valuation furnished in the plaint is not correct. On this score also, the above suit is liable to be dismissed.
Finally, the defendants No.17 and 18 prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
10.The defendant No.30 filed written statement, which is adopted by the defendants No.31 and 32. The contents of the written statement of D.30 are as follows:
That the suit is bad in law and not maintainable. The plaintiffs are put to strict proof of all the allegations not expressly admitted herein.
It is submitted that the defendants No.30, 31 and 32 adopt the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants
No.1 to 3, 13 and 14 and further submit as follows:-
OS.4/2001 - 57 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
It is submitted that the defendants No.30, 31 and 32 are not parties to the proceedings in O.S.No.18/1973, O.S.No.
370/1072, A.S.No.228/1977 and A.S.No.23/1977 and the
Judgments and decrees are not binding on the defendants
No.30, 31 and 32. They have filed for more claims of Churches and they have nothing to do with the present suit. It is submitted that the 1st defendant alone got exclusive and absolute right over the suit property and the 1st defendant has got right to alienate the properties. This defendant's predecessors-in-title derived right from the 1st defendant. That the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the above suit. The allegation in para 21 (b) of the plaint that the defendants 28 and 29 are not competent to represent the defendant No.1 Mission is all untrue. It is submitted that the defendant No.1 Mission was validly represented by the defendants 28 and 29 and they have been competent to alienate the property on behalf of the Mission to the defendants 30 to 32 and hence validly executed an agreement of sale in their favour. The plaintiffs have no authority to question the sale of the defendants 30 to 32 as they have nothing to do with defendant No.1 Mission. The allegation that this defendant and the defendants 31 and 32 obtained a collusive decree in O.S.No.45/2010 is all untrue. It is a valid decree in favour of this defendant and the defendants 31 and 32.
it is submitted that the decree in O.S.No.45/2010 was executed in E.P.No.6/2010 on the file of the Additional District Judge,
Anantapur, and in pursuance of the decree, the Hon'ble
Additional District Judge has executed a registered sale deed
dated 15.02.2011 on behalf of the defendant No.1
OS.4/2001 - 58 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 herein/judgment-debtor in that decree by covering an extent of
Ac.0-45 cents in T.S.No.35 and Ward No.5 of Hindupur
Municipality with specific boundaries and bounded by: East:
Private Property; West: Private property (old house); South:
Parigi Bus Stand and Parigi Road; North: Street passing from
Parigi Bus Stand to CIG Mission Bungalow, and further the defendants 30 to 32 took possession of the property through
Court under E.P. Proceedings for delivery of possession. It is submitted that the defendants 30 to 32 are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is submitted that items 1 to 3 of plaint 'B' schedule has nothing to do with the property purchased by the defendants 30 to 32. The very new plots shown as items 1 to 3 of plaint 'B' schedule are not in existence. On this ground alone, the above suit is liable to be dismissed. That the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the existence of very property mentioned in the plaint schedule.
This defendant and the defendants 31 and 32 are not proper and necessary parties to the above suit. Hence the above suit is liable to be dismissed on all aspects.
It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with the costs of this defendant and the defendants 31 and 32.
11.Basing upon the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial.
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration
of their right that plaintiffs 2 to 8 are entitled to use,
manage and administer plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule items in accordance with constitution, principles and practice, as alleged?
OS.4/2001 - 59 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to cancellation of the sale deed dated 22.3.2000 in favour of D-15 executed by D-4 to D-12 for Rs.1,90,500/- in respect of item No.1 of plaint 'B' schedule ?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to cancellation of sale deed date 25.5.2000 in favour of D-16, executed by D-4 to D-12 for Rs. 2,72,000-00 in respect of items 2 and 3 of plaint 'B' Schedule ?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to cancellation of sale deed dt. 16-2-2001 in favour of D-17 and D-18 executed by D-2, D-3, D-13 and D-14 for Rs.1,40,000/- in respect of item No.4 of plaint 'B' schedule ?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to cancellation of
sale deed dated 16-2-2001 in favour of D-17 and D-
18 executed by D-2, D-3, D-13 and D-14 for Rs.1,35,000/- in respect of item No.5 of plaint 'B' schedule?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to cancellation of lease deed dt. 10-9-1999 in favour of D-19 executed by the then president of D-4 society for Rs.1,50,000/- in respect of item No. 6 of plaint 'B' schedule?
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to perpetual injunction as prayed for ?
8. Whether the second plaintiff K.Shalim Das was recognized as pastor-cum-president of 1 st plaintiff Church by first defendant?
9. Whether plaintiffs 2 to 8 have got right to sue as
averred in paras 3 and 4 of written statements of D-
4 to D-12 ?
10. Whether the reliefs are undervalued and the court- fee paid is insufficient ?
11. Whether the alleged agreement of compromise deed
dated 8.8.1998 is true, valid and binding on the
parties, or what it its effect on the rights of the
parties, if any?
12. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the sales in favour of D-16 to D-19 alone, having
acquiesced earlier alienation's, as averred in para 35
of the written statement of D-4 to D-12 ?
13. Whether the first plaintiffs is a permanent Body with the elected Deacon Board members for every two years in accordance with rules framed by first
defendant, or, whether it is only a Temporary Body
for the purpose of maintenance of Local Church, as averred in written statement of D-1 to D-3 and D-13 and D-14 ?
14. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable?
15. To what relief?
OS.4/2001 - 60 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Additional issue framed on 8.3.2013:
1. Whether the defendants 21 to 32 are bona fide purchasers of the part of the plaint schedule property ?
12.On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 is examined and
Exs.A.1 to A.52 are marked. On behalf of the defendants,
D.Ws.1 to 4 are examined and Exs.B.1 and B.43 are marked.
13.Heard oral arguments on both sides. Apart from oral arguments, written arguments were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and on behalf of the defendant No.4.
14.P.W.1, who is the 3rd plaintiff, has filed chief affidavit. P.W.1 stated in his chief-affidavit that he represent the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and 4 to 8 in the suit as he is well acquainted with the facts of the case, he is duly elected deacon board member of the first plaintiff church and discharging his duties as secretary of first plaintiff church.
P.W.1 further stated that, believing that evangelization of the world is the first and foremost duty of the Church and to evangelize the unreached parts of India, to form self-supporting, self governing and self extending churches, the first defendant
Mission was found initially, in the year 1893 and the same was incorporated on the 12th March, 1928. Even before that, the
Association was registered as a Society on 12th November, 1897 under Indians Societies Act, XXI of 1860. Subsequently, the first defendant Mission registered as a Limited Company under Indian
Companies Act, 1986. The Registered office of the first
Defendant, is at No. 11, Pottery Road, Bangalore, Karnataka
OS.4/2001 - 61 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
State. The first Defendant Mission carriers out its mission field, aims and objects in various parts of country dividing Mission field into districts and filed committee in accordance with the constitution Articles, Principles and Practice of the first defendant
Mission. The 1st plaintiff is one such filed committee constituted at Hindupur to carry out its aims and objectives of D.1 mission.
The plaintiff No.2 is the duly appointed pastor and plaintiffs 3 to 8 are the duly constituted committee of the Deacon Board of the first Plaintiff, as per appointment orders and resolutions dated 25.9.1999 and 25.6.2000.
P.W.1, in his chief-affidavit, further stated that, the first plaintiff is the permanent Body and its Deacon Board Members are elected once in two years, in accordance with the rules framed by the first defendant Mission under the name and style of C.I. & G.M. Telugu Churches Councils, 1995 amending the previous Rules. The said Rules are framed for better governance and for carrying out the Mission objects and aims of the Church, established by the first defendant Mission. The 1st plaintiff is a self supporting, self governing, self-extending church at
HIndupur.
P.W.1, in his chief-affidavit, further stated that, the first defendant Mission, in pursuance of its Mission from out of the general funds and designated funds purchased immovable properties in Survey Nos.100-2, Govt. dry in an extent of
Ac.8.20 cents and an extent of Ac.3.80 cents in Survey No.101- 1, and in T.S. No.26 and T.S. No. 39 and in T.S. No. 27 and 35 under registered sale deed on different dates. The original
OS.4/2001 - 62 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 registered sale deed of the above said properties are in the custody of D-1 Mission. The aforesaid properties were acquired under above said sale deed with the concurrence of the then filed committee at Hindupur, the above said properties have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the first plaintiff in accordance with the constitution, principles and practice, right to possess and right to manage and right to control over the properties mentioned above are vested with the field committee i.e., 1st plaintiff alone including the right to purchase and to dispose of the property in cases where the purchasing or disposing of the properties involving large sums of money, the plaintiffs and D.1 has to take concurrence of the other Councils of the Mission. As per the constitution the first plaintiff alone is the de jure owner of all the properties of D.1
Mission at Hindupur subject to the control of the first defendant mission in the matters relating to financial and administrative control. The first defendant Mission has absolutely no right to deal with the above properties without consent and concurrence of all other councils of D.1 Mission. The original constitution principles and practice of D.1 mission and C & I.G. Mission
Telugu Church Act, 1995 is marked as Ex.A.1.
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, the first plaintiff, in consonance with the aims of the church and in dispensation of social and religious service, set up apart Ac.3.80 cents in Survey No.101-1 for cemetery to cater the needs of all the members professing the religious faith of Christianity at
Hindupur. Number of Tombs are in existence. Practice of burying the dead bodies in the premises is continuous and
OS.4/2001 - 63 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 uninterrupted. The 1st defendant Mission, in response to social and educational pursuits, from out of the designated funds, constructed a Boarding home in T.S. No.27 along with quarters for staff and Mission Bungalow for carrying out the aims and objects of the first defendant, poor and destitute children of
Christian Community have been provided with free education and free accommodation and boarding. Due to varied reasons the strength of the Boarding Home was down gradient, which was closed ultimately on recommendation of the first plaintiff.
The minutes of the council of the first defendant was communicated to the first plaintiff office bearers through letter
dated 13.5.1998. The 1st plaintiff church is using the boarding
home in T.S. No.27 for conducting prayers and worship activities and religious activities with the permission of D.1 mission.
One Rev. late B. Yesuratnam was appointed as Pastor of the first plaintiff church, in accordance with the constitution and he continued to work as Pastor of the first plaintiff church. The then deacon board under the benevolent guidance of late Rev.
B. Yesurathnam, the then pastor of the first plaintiff carrying out the aims and objects of mission with all earnestness, dedication and devotion. As the value of the plaint schedule property that are in possession and control and management of the first plaintiff‘s church have increased considerably with a view to gain control over the financial matters, and properties of first plaintiff church at Hindupur and to aggrandize themselves D.7 to D.10 herein and their men began to create troubles among the congregation of the first plaintiff church led by Rev. Late
B.Yesurathnam. Defendant No.7 to 10 and their henchmen with
OS.4/2001 - 64 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 a mala fide intention and motivation to spill disharmony among the 1st plaintiff congregation filed O.S.230/1973, OS.320/1973 and O.S.320/1973 on the file of learned District Munsif, Hindupur against late Rev. B.Yesurathnam was pastor of C & IG Mission
Church, Hindupur, and others. The first suit was laid by
M.Babudanam, claiming himself to be the one of the members of the church for declaration for holding the election on 27.07.1973 to the Deacon Board as illegal and for permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants therein from conducting elections.
The second defendant therein was M. Robert. In fact the plaintiff therein did not sue the C & IG Mission Church who brought that suit against pastor late Rev. B.Yesurathnam, along with that suit
I.A.1103/1973 was filed and interim injunction was obtained stalling the election schedule to be held on 27.07.1993, the said application was dismissed on 02.11.1973, then immediately another suit in O.S.519/1973 was filed on the very same file by the seven members, the D.2 in O.S.320/1973 stood as first plaintiff in the subsequent suit, one K.C.Kurpanandam was shown as second defendant. All the suits were disposed of by common judgment rendered on 27.8.1977. The certified copy of the common judgment is marked as Ex.A.3. The Hon'ble District
Munsif found in its judgment that the suits are vexatious suits and best example of how personal funds even the serene atmosphere of pious institution and that the plaintiff therein do not feel ashamed to describe the ordained pastor, time and again as a paid employee and that it reveals how contemptuous they were towards the pastor and what respect they show to the constitution. It is also observed by the learned District Munisf in
OS.4/2001 - 65 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 the conclusive portion of judgment that the Court was of the opinion that the general body should expel the plaintiffs therein from the primary membership and then only the peace and tranquility in the church will be restored and the unity of the minority community is preserved. Even the appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of above said suits in A.S. Nos.
228/1977 and 230/1977 on the file of District Judge, Anantapur was dismissed by a common judgment dated 10.4.1980. The certified copy of the same is marked as Ex.A.4. The judgment conclusively establishes continued existence of 1st plaintiff church.
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that the defendant No.4 rival church came into existence after disposal of the original suits and during the pendency of the appeals at the instance of the disgruntled plaintiff therein and their henchmen with a mala fide intention and circumvent judgments above referred suits.
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, the D.4 is thus only pseudo body with similar name that of 1st plaintiff floated to lay claim over the properties of the 1st plaintiff without regard to the objects and aims of the church. The correspondence filed and marked between the 1st plaintiff, D.1 and D.4 establishes that D.4 is not a field committee or church formed in accordance with the constitution of the 1st defendant mission. D.4 at the behest of defendants No.5 to 12 herein and their followers began to create troubles to the congregation of the first plaintiff and tried to lay claim over the affairs of the first
OS.4/2001 - 66 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 plaintiff. This conduct on the part of the 4th defendant and its self styled office bearers and defendants 5 to 12 herein was brought to the notice of first defendant by the plaintiff church through its office bearers. The first defendant took a serious view of it. In the main conference held in November, 10th to 14th of 1997 at Pune, a resolution concerning D.4 request to recognize it the D.1 in its conference, it was found that D.4 institution has adopted a statement of faith with defers substantially and totally from the statement of faith adapted by
Ceylon and India General Mission Telugu Churches as approved by the C & IG Mission conference in October, 1974 in which all
C&IG Mission Churches had agreed must never be changed. It has communicated to D.4 institution that D.4 institution has no right whatsoever to use the name Ceylon and India General
Mission Church and authorized the executive council of D.1 to take required action in the matter it deems advisable. Basing on that resolution, the executive council of D.1 mission met at
Bangalore on 18.1.1980 and after further discussions passed a
Resolution refusing to recognize D.4 institution as Ceylone and
India General Mission Church D.1 institution has also called upon the D.4 institution to refrain from using the name Ceylone and
India General Mission Church, Hindupur. This communication vouchsafe the 1st plaintiff alone as the C & IG Mission Church at
Hindupur. Again on 28.12.1983 another letter was addressed by
D.1 mission to D.4 to the effect that D.1 mission cannot recognize D.4 institution as C&IG Mission Churches, Hindupur.
Again on 29.11.1893 another letter was addressed by the then
Secretary of D.1 mission to D.4 the Secretary, in which the
OS.4/2001 - 67 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 earlier correspondence was referred and the request of D.4th institution was rejected by D.1 mission. The communication letter dated 23.01.1980 is marked as Ex.A.5. D.4 institution has been making attempts to gain control over the properties belonging to the plaintiff‘s church at Hindupur.
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, the 4th defendant and its self style office bearers again filed a suit against late Rev. B.Yesurathnam, the then pastor in
O.S.122/1984 on the file of Hon‘ble District Munsif Court,
Hindupur to declare the defendants in O.S.122/1984 are not entitled to conduct prayers along with a petition for interim injunction and obtained interim injunction orders. On appeal
before the Hon‘ble Additional District Judge, Hindupur in C.M.A.
No.9/1985 by its Judgment dated 1.5.1985 categorically found that the 4th defendant has not been recognized as affiliated body to first defendant herein and further found that the first defendant has continuously recognized Rev. late B.Yesurathnam as Pastor. This finding establishes that it is the plaintiff alone that is Field Committee of the first defendant. The suit in
O.S.122/1984 filed by the 4th defendant against B.Yesurathnam
was dismissed. The letter written by the plaintiff No.1 dated 07.06.1984 and the reply sent by the D.1 dated 17.07.1984 and the letter dated 17.10.1984 written by D.1 to the plaintiff No.1 and the letter dated 15.05.1998 addressed by D.1 to 1st plaintiff establishes the 1st plaintiff is continually striving for the aims and objects of the church in spite of troubles created by the D.4 to
D.12 and their henchmen.
OS.4/2001 - 68 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, the first defendant represented by its the then chairman filed
O.S.205/1990 on the file of District Munsif Court, Hindupur
against D.4 and others and O.S.4/1997 on the file of
Subordinate Judge, Hindupur, claiming reliefs against the 4th defendant and others, when they tried to interfere with the properties which are in the control of the plaintiffs. In the pleadings in O.S.205/1990 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Hindupur in Para-7 of the plaint, the first defendant categorical admitted that the first plaintiff alone is a validly constituted field committee at Hindupur and the first plaintiff represented by its office bearers is the custodian and managing the properties of the 1st defendant Mission with possession and further averring that the 4th defendant or anyone have absolutely no right whatsoever to interfere with the management of the plaint schedule properties by plaintiffs, which indicates that the 1st plaintiff is duly constituted field committee of the 1st defendant mission at Hindupur in accordance with the constitution, articles, principles and practice at Hindupur with a right to manage, use and administrate properties at Hindupur with possession.
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, the D.15 is not resident of Hindupur and he is working at Hyderabad and that the D.15 has no way concern over the affairs of the 1st plaintiff church. The D.15 yields much influence because of his association with political elements. The D.15 laid his eyes over the plaint schedule property and D.5 to D.12 followed suit. The
D.15 by virtue of his influence seems to have maneuvered D.2
OS.4/2001 - 69 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 and D.3 and got the sites in O.S.No.205/1990 on the file of
District Munsif Court, Hindupur in O.S.4/1997 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge Court, Hindupur disposed off. The alleged
disposal of the aforesaid sites are totally inadvisable and not binding either on the plaintiff or the defendant No.1. The D.2 and D.3 acted outside their scope and power and in fact either
D.2 and D.3 or D.1 himself has no right, title or authority to deal over the plaint schedule property, which are vested with the plaintiff No.1.
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, the D.5 to
D.12 in concert and collusion and to unjustly enrich themselves seems to have sold item No.1 to 3 of the plaint 'B' schedule property in favour of 15 defendant under registered sale deed
dated 22.3.2000 and 25.5.2000 likewise defendants 2, 3, 13 and
14 sold the properties in items No.4 and 5 of the plaint ‗B‘ schedule property in favour of defendants No.17 and 18 under two registered sale deeds, dated 16.2.2001. Recitals in the above said sale deed are absolutely incorrect. The vendors have no title whatsoever over the plaint 'B' schedule property and as such, the purchasers will not get any better title than what their vendors have.
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, prior to filing of O.S.205/1990 and OS.4/1997, there was exchange of notices between first defendant mission and 4th defendant and others in the reply notice to the notice dated 15.6.1990, the D.4 denied the title of D.1 mission over the properties and assert that the local church at Hindupur is in possession and enjoyment
OS.4/2001 - 70 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 of the properties attached to the local church at Hindupur. The notice and reply notice are filed and marked on behalf of the plaintiffs.
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, one
P.D.Paranjyothi claiming to be representing D.4 seems to have executed registered lease deed in favour of D.19 in respect of item No.6 of the plaint schedule property. Thus, the recitals in the lease deed incorrect and the alleged lessor had no manner of right, title or possession to lease the properties and as such D.19 will not get any better title that want his lessor had. The aforesaid sale and lease transactions are sham and nominal and will not in any way affect the rights of the 1st plaintiffs.
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, the plaintiff alone is having a right of purchase and disposing of the properties as a field committee at Hindupur with the concurrence of the other councils of the Mission. There are as many as 64 councils of the Mission, whose approval is necessary for disposal of the properties. Any transaction between the defendants 2, 3, 5 to 14 and D-16 to D-19 is not binding on the plaintiffs and on the first defendant Mission as the same is ultra virus of the constitution principles, and practice of the first defendant mission. The 1st plaintiff through its Deacon board continues to be in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with indefeasible title and possession over the plaint schedule properties as duly constituted field committee at
Hindupur in accordance with the constitution principles and practice of D.1 mission at Hindupur.
OS.4/2001 - 71 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, the value of the properties covered under the sale deeds in favour of D.6,
D.7 and D.18 and the property covered under the lease deed in favour D.19, is worth more than Rs.50,00,000/-. Any willing purchaser would have easily purchased the property covered under those documents for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. The D.2,
D.3 and D.5 to D.14 brought into the said sale deeds and lease deeds collusively and nominally with a view to create semblance of rights and there upon to interfere with the plaintiffs right and possession over the suit schedule properties, and that the defendants No.2, 3, 5 to 14 have absolutely no right, title whatsoever over the plaint schedule property and as such they cannot convey any better title on the defendants 16, 17, 18 and 19 the purchasers i.e., defendants 16 to 18 did not get any better title than what alleged vendors have. The plaintiffs are advised that they are bound under the general law to have sale deeds and lease deed set aside with a view to remove an obstacle standing in the way of the plaintiff as such the plaintiffs are obliged to sue the defendants for cancellation of the sale deeds dated 22.3.2000 and 25.5.2000 and 16.2.2001 and lease deed dated 10.9.1999 executed by defendants No.4 to 12 and the defendants 2, 3, 13 and 14 in favour of the defendants 16 to 19.
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, as defendants No.5 to 12 and their followers tried to interfere with the worship activities of the first plaintiff church they are going in the Boarding Home and tried to disturb the plaintiffs congregation, the 1st plaintiffs congregation apprehend that the
OS.4/2001 - 72 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 defendants 5 to 12 may take law into their own hands at any time interfere with the affairs of the plaintiff church, with that through its office bearers filed suit in O.S.No.118/2000 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Hindupur, when the defendants 4 to 12 tried to interfere with the prayers in the Church situated in
T.S.No.27 locally called as Mission compound Boarding Home.
Along with the suit in O.S.118/2000, an I.A for temporary injunction was preferred for temporary injunction and the same was dismissed. Against which, the plaintiffs herein preferred
C.M.A.3/2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Hindupur along with I.A.34/2001 for appointment of commissioner. The
Senior Civil Judge Court, Hindupur was pleased to appoint
advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the property covered under the C.M.A.3/2001. The advocate commissioner so appointed visited the property in the presence of both parties to the proceedings and note down the physical features and his report was filed into the Court. The certified copy of the Commissioner report is marked as Ex.A.18.
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, on 10.08.2001 the pastor of D.4 church addressed a letter to the pastor of the plaintiff church which is styled as no objection certificate for conducting marriage of Mr. S. Jayakumar with one
Mary.
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, after filing the present comprehensive suit, the suit in O.S.118/2000 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Hindupur was withdrawn with
OS.4/2001 - 73 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 permission of the Court as a comprehensive suit was filed in
O.S.4/2001 on the file of this Hon'ble Court.
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, as D.4 to
D.12 by creating false and fictitious documents in collusion with
D.2, D.3, and D.14 and D.15, are bent upon questioning the right of the plaintiffs to perform their religious duties and to use and managed the suit schedule properties of the first plaintiff and the first defendant in accordance with the constitution, principles and practice which are binding first plaintiff and first defendant and as such, the plaintiffs are obliged to file the suit for declaration of first plaintiff's right to manage the properties of the first defendant Mission situated at Hindupur and for cancellation of sale deed and lease deed as aforesaid and for consequential relief of injunction and other reliefs.
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, the defendants No.1 to 3 and 13 and 14 filed their written statement admitting the existence of the 1st plaintiff church and its deacon board in para 3 of their written statement and the other allegations in the written statement in para 4 and 5, 6 of the written statement are all false and they are invented in collusion with the other defendants in the suit in order to cover up the latches committed by the defendants 2, 3, 13 and 14 by using the name of D.1 mission.
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, the constitution principle and practice of C&IG Mission is a sacrosanct and binding. No one including the D.1 is entitled to
OS.4/2001 - 74 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 act contrary to the principles and practice laid down in the constitution.
P.W.1 further stated in his chief-affidavit that, all the allegations made by these defendants No.4 to 12 in the written statement are inconsistency from stage to stage from the beginning the defendants No.5 to 12 and their followers are trying to grab the properties of the first plaintiff by force and fraud. The defendants are not entitled to the property, and these defendants No.4 to 12 and other defendants cannot get any title or possession over the suit schedule property by virtue of any collusive document entered into between the defendants.
The defendants were never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties at any point of time. Any sort of documents they were entered into between defendants will not create any right on defendants 2 to 19 and the same will not extinguish the rights of the first plaintiff over the suit schedule properties and the said documents are not binding on the plaintiffs for any purpose.
-
15. It is written: Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of
God.
16.Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have
lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? With these
words from Gospel according to ST. Matthew, this Court
delivered the following Judgment.
OS.4/2001 - 75 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
17. It is true an interim orders passed in favour of
petitioners/plaintiffs. Precedents in interlocutory matters
are useful but cannot handcuff the future. As Cardozo put
it: The Court struggles to preserve, and surrenders to
nothing short of obvious compulsion. But Robert Jackson
struck a sound note when he said: “While Judge Cardozo
pointed out with great accuracy that the power of the
precedent is only “the path of the beaten track,” still the
mere fact that a path is a beaten one is a persuasive
reason for following it.
18.Now let us see and evaluate the chief affidavit of
PW1 filed under Or.18 Rule 4 (1) C.P.C. 1908. Why evaluating chief affidavit which means examination in chief. One must see the written statements filed by the defendants to find out whether the written statement contains any admissions those are made in chief affidavit.
19.Perused the written statements filed by the defendants 1 to 3, 13 and 14, D4 to D12, D16, D17, D18 and
D19, D20, D27. Prima facie the defendants 1 to 3, 13 and 14 categorically admitted the facts which are asserted in the chief affidavit filed by plaintiff (PW1) in para Nos. 1 to 3. As such there is no comment on Paras 1 to 3. Para 4 of the chief affidavit of PW1 discloses that the first defendant mission in pursuance of its mission from out of the general funds and designated funds purchased immoveable properties in Sy.No.
100-2 Govt. Dry in an extent of Ac.8.20 cents and an extent of
Ac. 3.80 cents in Sy.No.101-1, and in T.S.No. 26 and T.S.No.39
OS.4/2001 - 76 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 and in T.S.No. 27 and 35 under registered sale deed on different dates. The original registered sale deed of the above said properties are in the custody of D1 mission. The aforesaid properties were acquired under above said sale deed with the concurrence of the then field committee at Hindupur, the above said properties have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the first plaintiff in accordance with the constitution, principles and practice, right to possess and right to manage and right to control over the properties mentioned above are vested with the field committee, i.e. first plaintiff alone including the right to purchase and no dispose off the property in cases where the purchasing or disposing of the properties involving large sums of money the plaintiffs and
Defendant No.1 has to take concurrence of the other councils of the mission. As per the constitution the first plaintiff alone is the de-jury owner of the all properties of first defendant mission at
Hindupur subject to the control of the first defendant mission in the matters relating to financial and administrative control. The witness further deposed in his chief affidavit that the first defendant mission has absolutely no right to deal with the above properties without consent and concurrence of all other councils of first defendant mission. The original constitution principles and practice of first defendant mission and C & I.G. Mission
Telugu church Act, 1995 is marked. With regard to purchase of properties by first defendant mission is not an issue.
20.In para 3 of the chief affidavit, the first plaintiff claimed that the first plaintiff is the permanent Body and its
Deacon Board Members are elected once in two years,
OS.4/2001 - 77 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 accordance with the rules framed by the first defendant mission under the name and style C.I. & G.M. Telugu Churches Councils, 1995 amending the previous Rules.
21.Ex.A2 is perused and it contains 20 pages. In Page
No.11, clause (f) provides shepherd of the flock in protecting the properties of the Sangam care must be taken and the
Sangam must work for the economic development of Sangam and it contains no other clauses which deals with the properties and all other clauses in 20 pages deals with the evangelization and their role in constitutional shepherd of the flock in protecting the rights of Sangam the care must be taken by shepherd of the flock. What is made by this clause. This clause means
Shepherd of the flock must take care in protecting the rights of the properties of Sangam as the head institution/mother institution first defendant mission is situated in Bangalore. The
Shepherd of the flock are hereby directed to take the care in protection of the properties of Sangam as the Shepherd of the flock are situated in Hindupur where the properties are situated, it does not mean the shepherd of the flock can interfere with the property rights of mother mission/head mission situated at
Bangalore as the first plaintiff himself admitted that the properties were purchased by first defendant mission and the original sale deeds are in possession and custody of the first defendant mission.
22.The plaintiff (PW1) further admitted in para 2 of his chief affidavit that the first defendant mission registered as a society on 12-11-1997 under Societies Registration Act, XXI of
OS.4/2001 - 78 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 1860. Subsequently the first defendant mission registered as a
Limited Company under Indian Companies Act,1986. The first plaintiff in para No.2 of his chief affidavit deposed that the first plaintiff is the permanent Body and its Deacon Board Members are elected once in two years. The first plaintiff not stated in
the chief affidavit more especially in para No.3 when the
first plaintiff came into existence, whether it is registered
or unregistered? The first plaintiff further pleaded in his chief affidavit in para No.5 that the first plaintiff in consonance with the aims of the church and in dispensation of social and religious service set up apart Ac.3.80 cents in Sy.No. 101-1 for cemetery to cater the needs of all the members professing the religious faith of Christianity at Hindupur. Number of tombs are in existence. Practice of burying the dead bodies in the premises is continuous and uninterrupted. The first defendant mission in response to social and educational pursuits from out of the designated funds constructed a Boarding home in T.S.No. 27 along with quarters for staff and mission bungalow for carrying out the aims and objects of the first defendant, poor and destitute children of Christian community have been provided with free education and free accommodation and boarding. Due to varied reasons the strength of the boarding home was down gradient which was closed ultimately on recommendation of the first plaintiff. The minutes of the council of the first defendant was communicated to the first plaintiff‘s office bearers through letter dated 13-5-1998 which is filed and marked as Ex.A12.
23.The first plaintiff (PW1) stated in his chief- examination that the first plaintiff church is using the boarding
OS.4/2001 - 79 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 home in T.S.No. 27 for conducting prayers and worship activities and religious activities with the permission of first defendant mission. If the first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property what is the requirement for taking permission in using T.S.No.27 for conducting prayers and worship activities and religious activities from the first defendant mission, is a hundred dollars question.
24.So, on perusal of Ex.A12, the Secretary of the first defendant mission informed to the first plaintiff that the minutes taken by them with regard to Boarding home. The last decision was taken on 31-7-1995, whereas the minutes of the council of the first defendant mission was communicated to the first plaintiff on 13-5-1998. As per Ex.A12 the minutes were furnished to the first plaintiff by the first defendant mission after lapse of two years, nine months and thirteen days. Is this document is believable? Certainly ―Not‖.
25.U/sec. 92 proviso (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, this Court is entitled to test the fraud, intimidation, legality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contract.
This Court termed Ex.A12 is created, fabricated for the purpose of this case. No prudent man will inform the matter after expiry of two years, nine months and thirteen days. If this document is true, the last meeting held on 31-7-1995 and the decision is taken by the first plaintiff it is agreed that the boarding will not be reopened and the same is conveyed to the first plaintiff on 13-5-1998. If it is true what would happened to the boarding home. Even as per the fourth decision which is taken on 14-3-
OS.4/2001 - 80 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 1995 reopen of the boarding home, Hindupur is deferred and this document Ex.A12 does not inspire confidence of this Court to keep faith on the document as it is jettisoned and not considered.
26.The first plaintiff further submits that one Rev. late
B. Yesurathnam was appointed as pastor of the first plaintiff church in accordance with the constitution and he continued to work as pastor of the first plaintiff church. The then deacon board under the benevolent guidance of late Rev. B.
Yesurathnam the then pastor of the first plaintiff carrying out the aims and objects of mission with all earnestness dedication and devotion. As the value of the plaint schedule property that are in possession and control and management of the first plaintiff church have increased considerably with a view to gain control over the financial matters, and properties of the first plaintiff church at Hindupur and to aggrandize themselves D7 to D10 herein and their men began to create troubles among the congregation of the first plaintiff church led by Rev. late B.
Yesurathnam. D7 to D10 herein and their henchmen with a malafide intention and motivation to spilt disharmony among the first plaintiff congregation filed OS 230/73, OS 320/73 and OS 519/73 on the file of District Munsif, Hindupur against late Rev.
B. Yesurathnam was pastor of C & IG Mission Church, Hindupur and others. The first suit was laid by M. Babudanam, claiming himself to be one of the members of the church for declaration for holding the election on 27.7.1973 to the Deacon Board as illegal and for permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants therein from conducting elections. The second defendant therein
OS.4/2001 - 81 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 was M. Robert. In fact the plaintiff therein did not sue the C &
I.G. Mission church who brought that suit against pastor late
Rev. Yesurathnam, along with that suit I.A.1103/73 was filed and interim injunction was obtained stalling the election schedule to be held on 27.7.1973. The said application was dismissed on 2.11.1973, then immediately another suit in OS 519/73 was filed on the very same file by the seven members, the second defendant in OS 320/73 stood as first plaintiff in the subsequent suit, one K.C. Krupanandam was rendered on 27.8.1977.
27.PW1 further testified before this Court in his examination in chief affidavit that the certified copy is filed and the same is marked as Ex.A3. The Hon‘ble District Munsif‘s
Court, Hindupur found in its judgment that the suits are vexatious suits and best example of how personal funds define even the serene atmosphere of pious institution and that the plaintiff therein do not feel ashamed to describe the ordained pastor, time and again as a paid employee and that it reveals how contemptuous they were towards the pastor and what respect they show to the constitution. It is also observed by the learned District Munsif in the conclusive portion of judgment that the Court was of the opinion that the general body should expel the plaintiffs therein from the primary membership and then only the peace and tranquility in the church will be restored and the unity of the minority community is preserved. Even the appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of above said suits in
AS 228/77 and 230/77 on the file of District Judge, Anantapur
was dismissed by a common judgment dated 10-4-1980.
Certified copy of judgment is also filed marked as Ex.A4.
OS.4/2001 - 82 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
28.In evaluating this piece of evidence one Rev. late B.
Yesurathnam was appointed as a pastor of the first plaintiff church …. when this first plaintiff church has taken birth on what date, is not revealed by the first plaintiff either in the plaint or in his chief affidavit. The Rev. late B. Yesurathnam is the pastor of the first defendant church from Bangalore and they cannot have their own church in Hindupur is believed by this Court and moreover if the first plaintiff church is existing, why it is not registered is a one million dollars question. What is the origin of the first plaintiff church is not stated specifically by the first plaintiff either in the plaint or in the chief affidavit. Time is relevant fact u/sec. 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and it is to be corroborated u/sec. 156 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
29.At this juncture, the learned counsel for defendants 4 to 12 during the course of oral arguments termed the first plaintiff as a illusionary church and he sonorously stated in his arguments there is no such church as plaintiff.
30.The long cause title in original plaint discloses that
“Ceylon & India General Mission Church, Mission
compound, Recognized C & I General Mission, Bangalore
with Regn. No. 608/1956, recognized under Companies
Act, rep. by its Deacon Board President-cum-Poster K.
Shalim Das s/o K.Chandraiah, Christian, Poster of plaintiff
church, aged about 30 years, Mission Compound,
Hindupur”
31.The long cause title in the neat copy of plaint reveals
“Ceylon & India General Mission Church, Mission
OS.4/2001 - 83 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
compound, Recognized C & I General Mission, Bangalore
with Regn. No. 608/1956, recognized under Companies
Act, rep. by its Deacon Board President-cum-Paster and
others Deacon Board Members, Hindupur”
32.Once again this Court while evaluating the evidence, perused the chief affidavit filed by PW1 at page No.2 Para No.2 at third line from the top that subsequently, the first defendant mission registered as a Limited Company under Indian
Companies Act, 1986, which date is correct? Is it 1956 as per long cause title of the neat copy of plaint or is it 1986 as per chief affidavit filed by PW1. Further none of the parties either the plaintiffs 1 to 9 or the defendants 1 to 32 filed the document which is register under document No. 608/1956. Further the plaintiff as per long cause title and as per his examination in chief and in cross-examination PW1 has not produced any piece of document recognizing first plaintiff by the first defendant and such statement is not an admission within the meaning of Sec.17 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
33.It is well established principle that the statement to be read as an admission of a party it must be definite clear and specific and must specifically referred to and relate point or facts in disputing otherwise it is not an admission nor it can be treated as an admission. This was held in Melagiriyappa v.
Tumalappa AIR 1996 Kan. 150 at page 154. Here the word definite means when the first defendant has recognized the first plaintiff is not found either in the plaint or in the chief affidavit or in the cross-examination. Recognition must be in writing to
OS.4/2001 - 84 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 such big institution/church to deal with the properties, prayers and propagation of the religion.
34.Now the question is why this Court referring the plaint whether the admissions in pleadings can be evaluated?
―Yes‖. The admissions in the pleadings must be taken as a whole. No doubt what applies to an admission in the pleadings would not apply to statements made by the witness in evidence.
Without a piece of paper from the first plaintiff, claiming the property of the defendants is bizarre.
35.The first plaintiff relied on Ex.A2 the C.I. & G.M.
Telugu Church Act, 1995 and he is making reference of one Rev.
late B. Yesurathnam and referring him as pastor of first plaintiff church.
36.Now, let us come to further evaluate the chief- examination of P.W.1 in para No.3. The P.W.1 claims that the plaintiff No.1 is the permanent body and its permanent Body and its Deacon Board Members are elected once in two years, in accordance with the rules framed by the first defendant Mission under the name and style of C.I. & G.M. Telugu Churches
Councils, 1995 amending the previous Rules. The said Rules are framed for better governance and for carrying out the Mission objects and aims of the Church, established by the first defendant Mission. The 1st plaintiff is a self supporting, self governing and self-extending church at Hindupur.
P.W.1 asserting a fact that the first plaintiff is the permanent body and its Deacon Board Members are elected once in two years, in accordance with the rules framed by the first
OS.4/2001 - 85 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 defendant Mission and further claiming that the plaintiff is a self supporting, self governing and self extending Church at
Hindupur.
There is a complete contra in the statement deposed
before the Court in the form of chief-affidavit. There is no single
piece of evidence in the form of documentary evidence to say that the 1st plaintiff is the permanent body self supporting, self governing and self extending Church at Hindupur.
P.W.1 himself admitted the fact of purchasing immovable properties in Survey No.100-2 Govt. Dry in an extent of Ac.8.20 cents and an extent of Ac.3.80 cents in Survey No.101-1, and in
T.S. No.26 and T.S. No.39 and T.S. No. 27 and 34 from the general funds of the 1st defendant/Mission. The P.W.1 further admitted that the original registered sale deed of the above properties are in the custody of the 1st defendant/Mission.
So, as per the evidence of P.W.1, the properties are purchased by the 1st defendant and the documents are in possession of the 1st defendant, which means the 1st defendant is the owner of the above properties. The P.W.1 further claims that the aforesaid properties were acquired under the above sale deed with the concurrence of the then field committee at
Hindupur, the above said properties are in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the first plaintiff in accordance with the constitution, principles and practice, right to possess and right to manage and right to control over the properties mentioned above are vested with the field committee i.e., the 1st plaintiff alone including the right to purchase and to dispose of
OS.4/2001 - 86 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 the properties in cases where the purchasing or disposing of the properties are involved in large sums of money, the plaintiffs and
D.1 has to take concurrence of the other Councils of the Mission.
Under section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, every person competent to contract and entitled to transferable property, or authorized to dispose of transferable property not his own, is competent to transfer such property.
There is no document to show in Exs.A.1 to A.41 that the 1st plaintiff has to purchase the property with the concurrence of the 1st defendant and also there is no proof to show that the 1st defendant is in the continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule property. OK, let us for awhile admit that the 1st plaintiff is entitled to purchase the property and dispose of the property, if it is so, Has the 1 st plaintiff purchased any
singe cent of property and sold away single cent of the
property in the history of the 1 st defendant /Church? not
found. So, this evidence is given for the purpose of
evidence alone and not to prove any fact in issue?
The P.W.1 further claims that as per the constitution, the 1st plaintiff is alone de jure owner of all the properties of D.1
Mission at Hindupur subject to the control of the first defendant mission in the matters relating to financial and administrative control. The first defendant Mission has absolutely no right to deal with the above properties without consent and concurrence of all other councils of D.1 Mission. The original constitution principles and practice of D.1 mission and C & I.G. Mission
Telugu Church Act, 1995 is marked as Ex.A.1. So, perused the
OS.4/2001 - 87 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 chief-affidavit. In Ex.A.2, at page No.11 clause (f) it provides that ―Sangha Paricharikulu must take care in the protection of the 1st defendant Mission and they make every endeavour for the development of the 1st defendant/Mission. It does not provide any concurrence and right in selling and purchasing the properties given to the 1st plaintiff/Mission. This clause is kept in
Ex.A.2 as the 1st defendant original office is situated in
Bangalore. So, the Sangha Kaparulu must take care in the protection of the property from the encroachers and from the fraudulent transfers. It does not mean that the right to sell away the property of the 1st defendant Mission and right to purchase the property in the 1st defendant Mission is given to the plaintiff. The consent and concurrence is not given to anybody except to the Sangha Kaparulu.
Now the question is whether the plaintiff No.1 is Sangha
Kaparulu? and the 1st defendant Mission has recognized the 1st plaintiff Mission as Sangha Kaparulu? is the question. Even recognized, when and how, with what document the recognition made is one million dollar question?
37.Now let us further evaluate the evidence of P.W.1.
P.W.1 further more deposed before the Court in his chief- examination that the 1st plaintiff, in consonance with the aims of the church and in dispensation of social and religious service, set up a part Ac.3.80 cents in Survey No.101-1 for cemetery to cater the needs of all the members professing the religious faith of Christianity at Hindupur. Number of Tombs are in existence.
Practice of burying the dead bodies in the premises is continuous
OS.4/2001 - 88 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 and uninterrupted. There is no comment or evaluation of the above evidence. The 1st defendant Mission, in response to social and educational pursuits, from out of the designated funds, constructed a Boarding home in T.S. No.27 along with quarters for staff and Mission Bungalow for carrying out the aims and objects of the first defendant, poor and destitute children of
Christian Community have been provided with free education and free accommodation and boarding. The evidence goes on to say about the boarding, closing facts.
38.Now, the P.W.1 further more also stated in his examination-in-chief that one Rev. late B. Yesuratnam was appointed as Pastor of the first plaintiff church, in accordance with the constitution and he continued to work as Pastor for the first plaintiff church.
Pastor is not a church as man is not a family. This
Court read the Bible thoroughly. During the initial days after the death of Jesus Christ first century AD, after the death of Jesus, there were Churches. Church includes pastor, believers or followers of Jesus Christ. Church is the congregation of believers. Mr. B. Yesurathnam is a pastor, not a Church. The plaintiffs cannot claim that the pastor is the Church and these are the legal heirs of pastor Rev. late B. Yesurathnam.
P.W.1 further stated that the then deacon board under the benevolent guidance of late Rev. B. Yesurathnam, the then pastor of the first plaintiff carrying out the aims and objects of mission with all earnestness, dedication and devotion. As the value of the plaint schedule properties that are in possession,
OS.4/2001 - 89 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 control and management of the first plaintiff‘s church, has been increased considerably with a view to gain control over the financial matters and properties of first plaintiff church at
Hindupur and to aggrandize themselves D.7 to D.10 herein and their men began to create troubles among the congregation of the first plaintiff church led by Rev. Late B.Yesurathnam.
Defendant No.7 to 10 and their henchmen with a mala fide intention and motivation to spill disharmony among the 1st plaintiff congregation filed O.S.230/1973, OS.320/1973 and
O.S.519/1973 on the file of learned District Munsif, Hindupur
against late Rev. B.Yesurathnam was pastor of C & IG Mission
Church, Hindupur and others. The first suit was laid by
M.Babudanam, claiming himself to be one of the members of the church for declaration for holding the election on 27.7.1973 to the Deacon Board as illegal and for permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants therein from conducting elections.
The second defendant therein was M. Robert. In fact the plaintiff therein did not sue the C & IG Mission Church, who brought that suit against the pastor late Rev. B.Yesurathnam, along with that suit in I.A.No.1103/1973 was filed and interim injunction was obtained stalling the election scheduled to be held on 27.7.1973.
The said application was dismissed on 2.11.1973. Then immediately another suit in O.S.519/1973 was filed on the very same file by the seven members, the D.2 in O.S.320/1973 stood as first plaintiff in the subsequent suit, one K.C.Krupanandam was shown as second defendant. All the suits were disposed of by the common judgment rendered on 27.8.1977. The certified copy of the common judgment is marked as Ex.A.4.
OS.4/2001 - 90 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Now, let us evaluate the relevancy of the judgments.
The relevancy of the judgments deals from sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 40 provides relevancy of previous judgments to bar the second suit or trial. The nidus of section 40 is the doctrine of res judicata. Article 20 of the
Constitution of India. Section 41 provides finality of the judgments, orders, decrees of a competent Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial and admiralty. Section 42 provides judgments of matters relating to public nature. Section 43 provides the judgments mentioned in section 40, 41 and 42 are irrelevant unless existence of judgment or decree is a fact in issue or relevant fact under some other provisions of this Act.
Section 44 provides fraud or collusion in obtaining the judgment or any pendency of the Court may be proved. Out of five sections, section 43 provides some relevancy. But perused
Ex.A.3. In Ex.A.3, finally both the suits in O.S.320/1973 and
O.S. 519/1973 are dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant.
These judgments are of the Court of District Munsif, Hindupur and parties are different, subject matter is also different, as such little relevancy is gone.
The P.W.1 further says in his examination-in-chief that the defendant No.4 rival church has come into existence after disposal of the suits and during the pendency of the appeals at the instance of the disgruntled plaintiff therein and their henchmen with a mala fide intention and circumvent judgments above referred suits.
OS.4/2001 - 91 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
P.W.1 went on to say that, the D.4 is only pseudo body with similar name that of 1st plaintiff floated to lay claim over the properties of the 1st plaintiff without regard to the objects and aims of the church. The correspondence between the 1st plaintiff, D.1 and D.4 establishes that D.4 is not a field committee or a church formed in accordance with the constitution of the 1st defendant mission. D.4 at the behest of defendants No.5 to 12 herein and their followers began to create troubles to the congregation of the first plaintiff and tried to lay claim over the affairs of the first plaintiff. This conduct on the part of the 4th defendant and its styled office bearers and defendants 5 to 12 herein was brought to the notice of first defendant by the plaintiff church through its office bearers. The first defendant took a serious view of it. In the main conference held in November, 10th to November 14 of 1997 at Pune, a resolution concerning D.4 requesting to recognize the D.1 in its conference, it was found that D.4 institution has adopted a statement of faith which defers substantially and totally from the statement of faith adopted by Ceylon and India General Mission
Telugu Churches as approved by the C & IG Mission conference in October, 1974 in which all C&IG Mission Churches had agreed, must never be changed. It has communicated to D.4 institution that D.4 institution has no right whatsoever to use the name
Ceylon and India General Mission Church and authorized the executive council of D.1 to take required action in the matter it deems advisable. Basing on that resolution, the executive council of D.1 mission met at Bangalore on 18.1.1980 and after further discussion passed a resolution refusing to recognize D.4
OS.4/2001 - 92 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 institution as Ceylone and India General Mission Church D.1 institution has also called upon the D.4 institution to refrain from using the name Ceylon and India General Mission Church,
Hindupur. This communication vouchsafing the 1st plaintiff alone as the C & IG Mission Church at Hindupur.
Exs.A.6, A.8, A.9 and A.10 are alleged to have been addressed on letterheads of the 1st defendant. Whereas Ex.A.5 is not addressed on a letterhead of the 1st defendant. However, considering the same Ex.A.5, the third para from the bottom provides the congregation in Hindupur of which Rev. late B.
Yesurathnam is a pastor recognized this Executive Council as the
Ceylon & India General Mission Church, Hindupur is the portion specially marked. So, the 1st defendant might have recognized
Rev. late B. Yesurathnam as a pastor, not as a Church. So, this
Court may be permitted to repeat pastor is not a Church and man is not a family. So, the claim of P.W.1 that this communication vouchsafe the 1st plaintiff alone as the C.I. &
G.Mission at Hindupur is false.
P.W.1 further says that again on 28.12.1983 another letter was addressed by D.1 mission to D.4 to the effect that D.1 mission cannot recognize D.4 institution as C&IG Mission
Churches, Hindupur. This Ex.A.6 is the recognition of Rev. late
B. Yesurathnam is yet present pastor. In Ex.A.6, in the first page 4th line from the bottom provides ―the only congregation in
Hindupur, which is recognized by us as C.I. & G.Mission Church is one of which Rev. late B. Yesurathnam is yet present pastor.‖
The letter addressed by the 1st defendant reveals that Rev. late
OS.4/2001 - 93 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
B. Yesurathnam was recognized as a pastor for the sister institution of parent institution at Bangalore. The P.W.1 does not know the difference between congregation and denomination.
The congregation is only one congregation like Roman Catholic
Mission, but protestant mission and C.I. & G. Mission. There cannot be two congregation. There can be many denominations.
How the congregation of C.I. & G. Mission at Bangalore has recognized one more congregation, by name, C.I. & G. Mission at Bangalore (plaintiff) is not known to the Church canons. For example, Roman Catholic Mission is at Rome, is the congregation. There are number of denominations like Society
Act of Jesus, Don Basco, normal sisters, Jesus Joseph Mission,
Dheena Seva Sabha Mission etc. There cannot be one more congregation like Roman Catholic Mission in India or elsewhere in world. In one sentence, this Court can differentiate the congregation and denomination. The congregation is true, denominations are branches.
In the old testament, in Chapter 20 versus 12
provides Honour Thy father and thy mother: That thy dies
may be long and the land which the law thy code giveth
thee.
In the old testament book proverbs Chapter 6
verse 20 provides my son, keep thy fathers
commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother.
The above gospel analyzed that one must respect the
parent institution sans bout. Not respecting the
OS.4/2001 - 94 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
congregation by denomination is not a sin, but
blasphemy. This is the observation made by this Court.
In the gospel of Mathew Chapter 12 verse 50 provides whoever shall do the will of my father which is the heaven, the same is my brother and sister, and mother.
However, the letters addressed between D.1 to D.4 marked as Exs.A.5, A.6 and A.7 are between them, not between the plaintiffs. The plaintiff is no way concerned with the above mentioned letters.
P.W.1 further more stated that the 4th defendant and its self styled office bearers again filed a suit against late Rev.
B.Yesurathnam, the then pastor in O.S.122/1984 on the file of
Hon‘ble District Munsif Court, Hindupur to declare the defendants
in O.S.122/1984 are not entitled to conduct prayers along with a petition for interim injunction and obtained interim injunction.
On appeal before the Hon‘ble Additional District Judge, Hindupur in C.M.A. No.9/1985 by its Judgment dated 1.5.1985 categorically found that the 4th defendant has not been recognized as affiliated body to the first defendant herein and further found that the first defendant has continuously recognized Rev. late B.Yesurathnam as Pastor. The finding establishes that it is the plaintiff alone that is Field Committee of the first defendant. The suit in O.S.122/1984 filed by the 4th defendant against B.Yesurathnam was dismissed. The letter written by the plaintiff No.1 dated 7.6.1984. This letter is marked as Ex.A.8 and letters written by the 1st defendant to the 1st plaintiff on 15.6.1998 are Exs.A.8 and A.9 which are with
OS.4/2001 - 95 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 regard to board home repairs. Perused them in detail. The above documents do not confer any right to the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. The P.W.1 also deposed in examination-in-chief that the 1st defendant represented by its the then Chairman filed O.S.205/1990 on the file of District
Munsif Court, Hindupur against D.4 and others and O.S.4/1997 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Hindupur, claiming relief against the 4th defendant and others, when they tried to interfere with the properties, which are in the control of the plaintiff. The above Original Suits between the 1st defendant and the defendant No.4 in this suit, not between the plaintiffs in this suit. As such whatever decided/concluded in the above suits are not binding or making any entitlement over the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.
In the 11th para of the chief-affidavit, the P.W.1 stated that, the D.15 is not resident of Hindupur and he is working at
Hyderabad and that the D.15 has no concern over the affairs of the 1st plaintiff church. Then why this plaintiff added the D.15 as a party to the proceedings is a question? as deposed by him under Order 1, Rule 3 C.P.C..
P.W.1 further says that have sold away the items No.1 to 3 of the plaint 'B' schedule property in favour of 15th defendant under registered sale deed dated 22.3.2000, which is not exhibited and not marked and as such document is not considered and whereas on 25.5.2000 likewise defendants 2, 3, 13 and 14 sold the properties in items No.4 and 5 of the plaint ‗B‘ schedule property in favour of defendants No.17 and 18
OS.4/2001 - 96 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 under the two registered sale deeds, dated 16.2.2001. The
P.W.1 submits that recitals in the above said sale deed are incorrect and not valid and no title passed through such documents.
The P.W.1 further deposed in his chief-examination that prior to filing of O.S.205/1990 and OS.4/1997, there was an exchange of notices between the first defendant mission and 4th defendant and others in the reply notices to the notice dated 15.6.1990, the 4th defendant denied the title of D.1 mission over the properties and assert that the local church at Hindupur is in possession and enjoyment of the properties attached to the local church at Hindupur. The notices and reply notices are filed and marked on behalf of the plaintiff. Perused Exs.A.1 to A.41 and found Ex.A.36 dated 15.6.1990, whereas the plaintiff wrongly mentioned the date in exhibit as 18.6.1990.
So, Are statements made in Ex.A.36 are admissions?
Except in section 19 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides admissions by persons whose possession must be proved as against party to the suit and under section 20 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 admission by persons expressly referred to by the party to the suit. The admission made by the defendant No.4 against the 1st defendant is not an admission for the purpose of this suit within the meaning of section 17 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The P.W.1 further deposed that one P.D.Paranjyothi claiming to be representing D.4 seems to have executed registered lease deed in favour of D.19 in respect of item No.6 of
OS.4/2001 - 97 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 the plaint schedule property. The P.W.1 deposed in the 15th para of chief-affidavit that the plaintiff alone is having right of purchasing and disposing of the properties as field committee at
Hindupur with the concurrence of the other councils of the
Mission.
P.W.1 further deposed that there are as many as 64 councils of the Mission, whose approval is necessary for the disposal of the properties. This piece of evidence must be evaluated. First and foremost P.W.1 himself does not know how many councils are there in Hindupur Church. He deposed ―as many as 64 councils of the Mission‖, but he is not asserting the truth that there are 64 councils of the Mission. The above expression is vague and more over if there are 64 councils of the
Mission, whose approval is necessary for the disposal of the properties, these 64 councils are necessary parties for the purpose of the suit as without their concurrence, without their approval the suit properties are transferred, how the suit is maintainable under Order 9, Rule 9 proviso, provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of necessary party.
The present suit is not a suit under Order 1, Rule 8 i.e., representative suit. There is a prescribed procedure enunciated under Order 1, Rule 8 to institute representative suit.
At this juncture, the suit shall be dismissed as necessary parties are not added by the plaintiff himself.
The witness P.W.1 further deposed that any transaction between the defendants No.2, 3, 5 to 14 and the defendants 16 to 19 is not binding on the plaintiff and the 1st defendant Mission
OS.4/2001 - 98 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 as the same is ultra virus of the constitution principles and practice of the 1st defendant/Mission. This kind of objection is allowed to make by the 1st defendant Mission, not by the P.W.1.
The plaintiffs are advised that they are now under what law to have the sale deeds and lease deed set aside with a view to remove obstacle standing in the way of the plaintiff, as such the plaintiffs are obliged to sue the defendants for cancellation of the sale deeds dated 22.3.2000, 25.5.2000 and 16.2.2001 and lease deed dated 10.9.1999 executed by the defendants No.4 to 12 and D.2, D.3 and D.13 and D.14 in favour of D.16 to D.19.
At this juncture, this Court invoked section 31 of Specific
Relief Act, 1963
When cancellation may be ordered.— (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
(2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.
Is this plaintiff party to the above documents and how he can seek the cancellation of above documents is the question of law as he is a third party to the above instruments.
OS.4/2001 - 99 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
The P.W.1 further deposed that as the defendants 5 to 12 and their followers tried to interfere the worship activities of the first plaintiff church, they are going in the Boarding Home and tried to disturb the first plaintiff‘s congregation. The 1st plaintiff congregation apprehend that the defendants 5 to 12 may take law into their own hands at any time, interfere with the affairs of the first plaintiff church. With that through its office bearers filed suit in O.S.No.118/2000 on the file of Junior
Civil Judge Court, Hindupur, when the defendants 4 to 12 tried
to interfere with the prayers in the Church situated in T.S.No.27 locally called as Mission compound Boarding Home. Along with the suit in O.S.118/2000, an I.A. for temporary injunction was preferred and the same was dismissed.
The P.W.1 further deposed about the suits, C.M.As, but this Court is not interested in discussing about mentioning of unnecessary suits, in which this P.W.1 is not a party.
P.W.1 in para 18 of the chief-affidavit deposed that on 10.8.2001 the pastor of D.4 church addressed a letter to the pastor of the plaintiff church, does not mean that the defendant
No.4 Pastor has given absolute right to the plaintiff. It is irrelevant as to the subject matter, hence no comments.
Now, let us evaluate the evidence of P.W.1 in cross- examination. In the cross-examination by advocate for D.1 to
D.3, D.13 and D.14, P.W.1 has given certain facts which are introductory in nature and explanatory in nature, they are relevant under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But, in the cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot say how
OS.4/2001 - 100 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 many Directors are there in the D.1 Church. He further says that there may be 5 or 6 Directors and he cannot say the names of the Directors. This is the knowledge of P.W.1 about the 1st defendant of the suit.
Knowledge is a relevant fact under section 14 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He does not know anything about the 1st defendant Church like Directors, names of the Directors.
P.W.1 admitted that the 1st defendant company has got its area of operation throughout the country and he does not know whether the 1st defendant has got branches in New Zealand and
U.S.A. The witness further says that the 1st defendant is having properties in Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu. The Head Office of the 1st defendant is situated at
Bangalore.
The witness further says that the 1st defendant is not the owner of those properties, which means the properties situated in Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
How can P.W.1 says that the 1st defendant is not the owner of those properties. It is a mere statement, not an evidence as to matters under enquiry, but the witness admitted that the 1st defendant has got control over the management of the properties.
The witness further states that the ownership bless with the local district committees and field committees. The witness further more adds that the properties purchased at Hindupur under registered documents in the name of the Church at
Hindupur and not in D.1‘s name and he further admitted that he
OS.4/2001 - 101 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 has not filed any document to show that the property at
Hindupur was purchased in the name of Hindupur Church.
In the chief-examination in the 4th para, he admitted that the 1st defendant Mission in pursuance of its mission from out of the general funds purchased the properties in Survey
No.100-2 to an extent of Ac.8.20 cents and an in Survey No.
101-1 to an extent of Ac.j3.80 cents, etc., under registered sale deeds on different dates. The original sale deeds are in the custody of the 1st defendant Church. Whereas now P.W.1 is making contra statement before the Court that the properties purchased at Hindupur are the properties of Hindupur Church and he has not filed any document to show that.
P.W.1 is recalled and sworn on 6.8.2004. In the cross- examination, he admitted that he does not know the nature of the properties at Hindupur. What a pity? and he knows not the location of the properties. Even a rickshaw puller, who takes believers to the Church, also knows the location of the properties as Hindupur is not a big Metropolitan city. He further admitted that there are no documents in possession of the 1st plaintiff
Church as regards the properties. This is true as the properties are in the name of the 1st defendant and all the documents are in the custody of the 1st defendant and he further admitted that there is only one Church C.I. & G.M. Church and the witness also admitted in the cross-examination that there is only one group of Christians under Ceylon & India General Mission. It is true because Ceylon & India General Mission is the congregation, but a denomination. He further admitted that it is true that the
OS.4/2001 - 102 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Church was constructed more than 100 years back. Now the 1st plaintiff is claiming the properties, which has no origin, no recognition, no authority. The witness further more deposed
before the Court that the cash on hand with the 1st plaintiff
church will be in lakhs and he cannot specifically say the amount, which is in the knowledge of treasurer. The accounts are with their governing body for the past six or seven years.
The account books prior to that are not with them. They are all available with the Secretary and treasurer.
The witness further admitted that the copy of the accounts will be dispatched to the 1st defendant every year and one copy will be with them, which means the witness admitting the superior authority of the 1st defendant Mission and the witness admitted with crystal clearness that it is true in the earlier suits, the 1st defendant Church was not made a party and further more stated that the 1st defendant Mission did not sell any property. Some persons belonging to the 1st defendant
Church holding some posts sold the properties. This is the clearness and clarification available from the evidence of P.W.1.
Who are those persons and what are the posts that they are holding is not clear. However, it is clear that those persons belong to the 1st defendant Company. The witness further more also admitted that they have filed suit in respect of some alienated properties which were to their knowledge. This piece of evidence is contrary to the principle enumerated in Order 2,
Rule 2 suit to include the whole claim unless part of it relinquished under sub-rule (2), whereas sub-rule (3) if he omits
OS.4/2001 - 103 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 except with the leave of the Court to sue all the properties, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief, so omitted.
Again P.W.1 was recalled on 7.9.2004. He categorically admitted that the 1st plaintiff Church is not a registered body. It is recognized by the 1st defendant Mission, but not under any law in existence in the country. The 1st plaintiff is not a registered body, but recognition of the 1st plaintiff Church is not under any law. How can the 1st plaintiff Church claims as a person or a company or a corporation? It is neither a person nor a company nor a corporation nor a society.
The word ―person‖ is defined under section 3 (42) of
General Clauses Act, 1897. The word ―person‖ shall include any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. but this body of persons or association of persons are not recognized under any law existing in the country by the 1st defendant Mission, is the evidence of P.W.1.
The witness further deposed that the 1st defendant has got authority under its constitution to recognize different branches of the Mission Churches. This is the correct statement, and correct evidence given by P.W.1. As this Court observed that the 1st defendant Mission is a congregation and other institutions are denominations as observed supra in the judgment and this Court observed in supra that the congregation is a tree and denominations are branches. Now the witness made a correct statement before the Court that the 1st defendant Mission got authority under its constitution to recognize the different branches of the Mission Churches. The
OS.4/2001 - 104 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 1st plaintiff is also not a Mission Church, they have been claiming the legacy through one pastor, by name, B. Yesurathnam.
Pastor may come or go or die, but Church is permanent
institution. Now the branch is claiming its right over the root of the tree, which means, the 1st defendant Mission is situated at
Bangalore. This Court may be permitted to repeat once
again that the branch is questioning the authority of the
mother root of the tree, which is not allowed under any
circumstances as this Court observed certain biblical
principles in supra. The said constitution is marked as Ex.A.1.
But the 1st defendant Mission is registered under the Companies
Act, 1956, vide Serial No. 608 of 1956. The witness boldly admitted that the company was not registered in 1995 as stated in the plaint in short cause title and the witness further more admitted that the plaintiffs No.2 to 9 have no individual personal rights in any of the Church properties. Then how and why the plaintiff No.2 to 9 are added as parties to the suit in their individual names, is the question of law. The witness further more deposed that the defendants No.2, 3, 5 to 15 also have no right over the Church property in their individual capacity and he further more admitted that they have not claimed any individual rights at any time and further more and more admitted that they have not utilized the Church properties for the personal needs.
With this evidence, the suit may be dismissed. Since the defendants No.2, 3, 5 to 15 not utilized the Church properties for their personal needs means, it is an admission made by P.W.1 as to the role of the defendants No.2, 3, 5 to 15. The witness further more stated before this Court that all the properties are
OS.4/2001 - 105 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 belong to Ceylon & India General Mission Church at Hindupur.
The Ceylon & India General Mission was originally established at
London.
The witness was further cross-examined on 8.2.2005.
In his evidence, he stated that he does not know anything about the accounts and construction of new Church and expenditure of the new Church raised, who inaugurated the Church etc., facts.
The witness admitted in the cross-examination that there is no contribution on their part for construction of new
Church and further admitted that the 1st defendant spent the designation funds for the construction and he does not know whether 145 of Cr.P.C., 1973 proceedings are existed between
D.1 and D.4 in respect of the Church and he does not know there was any compromise between D.1 and D.4 and he further admitted that he does not know whether any compromise deed filed into Court. He specifically stated that he did not hear about it and he further more admitted that there is a old Church and new Church in the same premises, there was a boarding room in the Mission compound till 1984 for the occupation of the students. After 1984 it is handed over to us for using the
Church, which means the P.W.1 is an authorized person to use the boarding room as a Church. P.W.1 or the plaintiff No.1 is not a Church at all. With the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.1 and others are allowed to use the boarding room as a Church. After authorization in 1984, these people are claiming the whole properties are their own properties and questioning the authority of the 1st defendant Mission established at Bangalore. The
OS.4/2001 - 106 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 witness further says that the 1st defendant recognized their
Church and its congregation. Exs.A.1 to A.41 perused. There is no such recognition, there is no such authorization given by D.1 to P.W.1 and the 1st plaintiff. The pastor will be paid
honorarium. The witness further deposed that he does not know
that with whose funds the unfinished community hall basement was constructed and does not know what was the extent made for the construction of new Church. The witness also deposed that he does not know whether Survey No.102 was sold away by the 1st defendant and he has not admitted a suggestion that entire affairs of Church are under the control of the defendant
No.4. The witness more specifically admitted that no authority is given any individual of the plaintiff No.1 board.
Again the P.W.1 is recalled on 7.3.2005 and admitted a fact that they have litigation with the defendant No.4 since 1973.
The witness in the 8th page beginning deposed that the plaintiff/Church was a Director of D.1 company right from its inception in the year 1896. The plaintiff Church is not registered
Church and the witness further more admitted that there is no evidence to show that their Church is the Director of the 1st defendant. This piece of evidence is sufficiently sufficient to dismiss the suit with the heavy costs and he further more admitted that there is no correspondence between the 1st defendant and their Church as its Director to attend meetings etc., He cannot specifically specify the date of specific correspondence. He further more admitted that it is true that
D.1 has got various branches in all particulars of India and several properties and the witness further stated that he does
OS.4/2001 - 107 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 not know as to how many persons the land was sold in Survey
No.100-2 and its extent and he did not make any enquiry, who are the purchasers in Survey No.100-2 and he does not know how much amount was realized. The witness deposed that the new Church was built by the 1st defendant at Hindupur and he has not seen the Church so far. The church raised by the 1st defendant was beautiful, large and just opposite to main road at
Hindupur Court.
In the cross-examination by the defendants No.16 and 19, he has not admitted that the defendants No.16 and 19 are bona fide purchasers for property purchased from the original owners of the property. The witness categorically admitted in his cross-examination in the 11th page, 7th line from the top that it is true that the plaintiffs were not Deacon members of the board of the Church headed by late B. Yesurathnam and he further admitted that there is no correspondence between the 1st defendant and their several plaintiffs prior to or subsequent to filing the suit. This is the gist of the evidence in the cross- examination of P.W.1.
39.Let us evaluate the evidence of DW.2 first, instead of evaluating the evidence of DW.1. DW.2 played an important role in the disputed land of the suit schedule property and he enjoyed different posts like Secretary to the defendant No.4 etc., hence it is wise to evaluate the evidence of DW.2 first and then go to
DW.1.
40.DW.2 is Elisha Prabhakar and he is defendant No.20 and is the son of the defendant No.7. He deposed before the
OS.4/2001 - 108 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Court the defendant No.4 is a Society registered under Society
Registration Act, 1860, with Registration No.148/1978 and he deposed as follows:- Sri K.Bhaskar Rao was the President of defendant No.4 prior to 16.4.2005. Sri B.Manohar is the president of D.4 from 16.4.2005. K.R.Narasimhulu was the Vice
President of D.4 till 16.4.2005. The defendant No.5 (M.Bhaskar) was not the President of D.4 at any time and he further deposed that who are the different people and what are their designations in the Church properties, more especially the designations they held in D.4 church. He further more deposed that he knows the affairs of the Church since 1980 and he played an active role in the affairs of the Church since then. That is why he was selected as Secretary of D.4 on 6.4.2005. He knows affairs relating to
D.4 since 1980 and he deposed about D.11/the Vice President of
D.4 and his illness and incapacity to attend before the Court.
So, that is not the subject matter to be discussed in detail, hence jettisoned. In the 5th para of the chief-affidavit, the deponent DW.2 deposed that there was or is no such body described as the 1st plaintiff in the cause-title of the plaint. The description is invented for the purpose of filing this suit. The D.1 had no right to recognize the 1st plaintiff as an entity. The alleged recognition by the 1st defendant could and did not give any status in law to the fictitious plaintiff No.1. There was or is in no Deacon Board or Field Committee for the alleged plaintiff
No.1. No such committee existed for any Church. The Solemn
Shalim Das had no right and he did not represent the alleged plaintiff No.1 at any time in any capacity. Pastor is a salaried post. The pastor could not and cannot be the President of the
OS.4/2001 - 109 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Deacon Board. The plaintiffs 2 to 8 had or have nothing to do with theCeylon & India General Mission, Hindupur. They did not hold any office in regard to Church of Hindupur. The plaintiffs
No.2 to 8 had no right to file the suit against the defendants for any relief in regard to the Church at Hindupur on behalf of alleged plaintiff No.1.
41.Let us evaluate the evidence of DW.2 in the light of facts in issue and relevant facts. This Court believes the evidence of DW.2 that there was no such description described as plaintiff No.1 in the cause title in the plaint. What its origin or sanction or authority or recognition are the questions troubling the Court when plaint is read thoroughly and the evidence of
P.W.1 in examination-in-chief and cross-examination. There is no iota of evidence to say that the 1st plaintiff is a Church. The original Church Ceylon & India General Mission was established in Hindupur in 1894 by the 1st defendant. It is analyzed in the light of the facts alleged in the written statement that some unwarranted group formed and claiming that they are Ceylon &
India General Mission and filed this false, fictitious, fabricated suit. As per the plaint and P.W.1, Rev. late B. Yesurathnam was the pastor, yet he is a pastor.
42.Pastor alone is not a Church. Church means and includes a group of believers guided by a pastor in the path of the word of Jesus Christ. Church is an integral communion in trinity by father, son and whole spirit, that the combination of believers and a pastor/priest. Soon after the death of Jesus
Christ, there were Churches without a church building/church
OS.4/2001 - 110 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 properties. The group of people assembled and the pastor used to preach the Bible to the believers. That itself constitutes a
Church. This Court is well acquainted with the biblical versions, that is why this Court is making comment at this juncture.
DW.2 further deposed that there was and is only one
Church at Hindupur. The Church in T.S.Nos.26 and 39 of
Hindupur abutting the road called Penukonda road. The church was established at Hindupur in the year 1894 by the 1st defendant. There was or is no small Church and big church at
Hindupur other than Church existed in T.S.Nos.26 and 39 at
Hindupur. This piece of evidence inspires the confidence of this
Court to believe this fact.
The witness stated that there were two Church buildings and has not deposed that there are two Churches.
Church buildings may be many, but Church is the only one, is the observation made by this Court. The D.4 constructed a new
Church building at the cost of about one crore. The D.4 raised funds by way of contributions from the Christians, who and have been attending the Church. The D.4 raised funds by selling the lands of the Church. D.1 also gave fairly good amount as donation for the construction of new Church building. The defendant No.4 has to clear the loan running into lakhs incurred for the construction of the new church building. The defendant
No.4 was constrained to undertake the construction of the new building for the church as old building was in dilapidated condition. This piece of evidence is true when it is compared with the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 stated before the Court that he
OS.4/2001 - 111 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 has not seen the new church building. It is false to state that he has not seen the church building. It is the largest and beautiful shrine existing in south India as the shrine is existing just opposite to Court building i.e., in the main road of Hindupur. In the opinion of the Court, no one from Hindupur can say that he has not seen the newly built church, whereas the P.W.1 stated that he has not seen the church, which means the P.W.1 is not attending the church and he does not know the properties of the church and he does not know anything about the church is the fact inferred by this Court. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he himself does not know who built the Church. So there is no denial by the P.W.1 the construction of the Church by D.4, which means P.W.1 has indirectly admitted the fact that D.4 raised the new shrine.
The witness DW.2 further more stated that the plaintiffs did not contribute anything towards the newly Church building.
Yes, P.W.1 himself admitted this fact in the cross-examination of
P.W.1. The plaintiffs No.1 to 8 not contributed anything for the construction of the new shrine, but they fight for the Church properties, is an astonishing fact to this Court, which means the plaintiffs No.1 to 8 do not want to do anything for the reason of new church building as the old Church is in dilapidated condition and they want the properties. Is it religiously/morally/humanly and allowed? This Court do not want to make any comment on the facts deposed in 8th para of the chief-affidavit as they are not either facts in issue or relevant facts. The witness further more deposed that the 1st defendant is the registered company with
No.608/1956 and not 608/1995. During 1896 Mr. Benjimen,
OS.4/2001 - 112 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
B.Davidson was in management of the Church at Hindupur. On behalf of the Church of Hindupur, he purchased some properties under sale deeds dated 1.12.1896 for the Church of Hindupur.
At later time, some properties were also purchased for the
Church of Hindupur. All those properties were exclusive properties of the Church at Hindupur. Yes, it is a true evidence and believable evidence. The Church properties were purchased in the name of the Church, but not in the name of any individual.
As such the properties are the properties of the Church. The witness further more stated that there was conflict between the defendants 1 and 4 in regard to the possession and management of the Church and its properties. The conflict resulted in starting of proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and
M.C.56/1991 on the file of the Mandal Executive Magistrate,
Hindupur. The defendant No.4 was declared to be in possession of the Church and Church properties by the Mandal Executive
Magistrate under section 145 Cr.P.C., 1973. The defendant No.1
filed Criminal Revision Petition No.1/1993 on the file of Hon‘ble
Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. At that stage, the
defendants No.1 and 4 resolved all the conflicts between them and filed a deed of compromise into Court along with a memo.
The Court was pleased to record and close Criminal Revision
Petition No.1/1993. The compromise was signed by the
Chairman and Secretary of the 1st defendant and the office bearers of the defendant No.4. The defendant No.11 is one of the attestors to the deed of compromise.
At this juncture, it is wise to peruse the deed of compromise, which is marked as Ex.B.1. Perused the
OS.4/2001 - 113 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 compromise deed. The first party is Ceylon & India General
Mission Church, Hindupur – the Ceylon & India General Mission at Bangalore entered into an agreement and compromise. The properties of the 1st defendant were divided into ‗A‘ schedule, ‗B‘ schedule and ‗C‘ schedule. As per the terms and conditions, the second party i.e., Ceylon & India General Mission at Hindupur shall be empowered to alienate the property noted in the schedule ‗A‘ herein to the third parties mutually agreeable to both parties herein and the second condition is the first party i.e., Ceylon & India General Mission at Hindupur is the absolute owner of the entire properties listed in the schedule ‗B‘ and the second party will have no claim or any sort of right or interest whatsoever on the ‗B‘ schedule properties and that the second party admits the continuous possession and enjoyment of the ‗B‘ schedule properties by the first party ab initio. The third condition is that all the cases pending in different Courts at present, more clearly stated in the schedule ‗C‘ hereunder shall be closed to be closed by the party and it is duly signed by both the parties and the advocates also signed a Memo. Initially, the plaintiffs‘ advocate objected for marking such document, but the
Hon‘ble Court finally admitted Ex.B.1. The witness further
deposed that on and from 8th day of August, 1998, the 1st defendant did not make any claim to any properties of the
Church as detailed in schedule ‗B‘. All the suits were allowed to be dismissed as per the terms of the compromise. D.1 ceased to have any control over the Hindupur Church and its affairs from 8.8.1998. This piece of evidence is in support of Ex.B.1 and considered the same.
OS.4/2001 - 114 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
The witness further deposed that the D.4 sold Ac.0.12 cents in Survey No.101-1 to the Officers‘ Recreation Club under sale deed dated 1.4.1989. The Officers‘ Club constructed a building with compound wall and running Officers Club therein.
With that money got by the sale, a compound wall was constructed around the cemetery and they also took
Government aid. The cemetery is being maintained by the D.4.
This Court will make its own comment about the alienation of the Church properties by both D.1 and D.4 at its conclusive portion of the judgment. The witness DW.2 further deposed that the 1st defendant sold plots in Survey No.100-2 to
Md. Shakeer, Md. Shameer, Jonna Ramaiah, Jonna Veera
Seshaiah, Elisha and several others including D.17 and D.18.
The entire extent in Survey No.100-2 was sold away except
Ac.0.25 cents now remaining vacant. The defendant No.1 has got no right or possession over the other properties at Hindupur after 8.8.1998.
The witness further deposed that the D.4 sold two plots to the defendant No.16 under registered sale deed dated 22.3.2000 in Survey No.35. Again the defendant No.4 sold three plots in T.S.No.35 to D.16 under registered sale deed dated 25.5.2000. Except the small extent in T.S.No.35, the rest was sold away to others.
The witness also stated that a destitute home for the children of Christian community was established to provide free education. The building which was accommodating the destitute children became very old and unfit for human habitation. The
OS.4/2001 - 115 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
D.4 undertook the repairs and spent good amount on this building.
The witness further also deposed thatRev. B.
Yesurathnam was not the pastor of the plaintiff No.1 and the said pastor was died in the year 1996 and he lost the membership in the joint body of Hindupur church as he acted contra to the principles enumerated in the Church administration.
The witness also stated that there was no need to conduct any prayers other than the Church building. The plaintiffs had nothing to do with the dispute between Rev. B.
Yesurathnam and D.4. Prakash Rao was the strong supporter of
B. Yesurathnam and all the letters and reply letters are brought into existence to buttress a false claim of the plaintiffs 2 to 8.
These letters did not and do not have anything with the 1st plaintiff or plaintiffs 2 to 8. The said Yesurathnam was appointed as pastor in the year 1962. This is the gist of DW.2 evidence along with the marked documents Exs.B.1 to B.39.
In the cross-examination of DW.2, he has given a detailed explanation of each exhibit and its contents and the witness was recalled on 18.11.2009. He not admitted in cross- examination on this day that the Church at Hindupur belongs to the 1st defendant and the witness further admitted that the 1st defendant/Mission is registered under British Companies Act, 1919. Subsequently, the same has been registered under the
Indian Companies Act. Ceylon & India General Mission had properties throughout India, especially Andhra Pradesh,
OS.4/2001 - 116 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Tamilnadu, Kerala and Pondichery and he deposed that he does not know whether the Power of Attorney was given to B.E. Tozer in the year 1974 to alienate the properties. The D.1/Mission owned the properties at Hindupur, Madakasira, Penukonda,
Kadiri and Kalyandurg. B.E. Tozer met with a road accident in the year 1980.
43.The witness further stated that he does not know after B.E.Tozer went abroad, A.N. Selvaraj gave power of attorney by the Board of Directors. The said Selvaraj died.
After death of Selvaraj, one Rajkumar, Rabinson and Raja
M.Selvaraju is the Chairman and Secretary of D.1 Mission. The said Rabinson and Raja M.Selvaraju i.e., D.2 and D.3, dealt with
Mission properties and he does not know whether D.1 Mission has sold the properties at Kadiri and he further stated and admitted that D.17 and D.18 purchasedthe properties from D.1
Mission after the compromise and he has not admitted the fact that D.1 Mission was the absolute owner of the properties which conveyed to D.17 and D.18.
Witness volunteers that D.4 is the owner of the property and he admitted that he was not the Director of D.1 Church, but he is Secretary of D.4.
He was further cross-examined by the plaintiffs‘ advocate and in further cross-examination, he admitted that he was member in a Registered Association in Registration
No.148/1978 with effect from 1984 onwards and further stated that his father worked as Secretary in Registration No.148/1978 and the rules of Ex.A.2 would not be applicable to D.4
OS.4/2001 - 117 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 institution. His father‘s name is Dinakar John and he further more stated that he knows the plaintiffs in O.S.No.519/1973 on the file of District Munsif Court, Hindupur and he also knows
Babudanam and he does not know whether the said Babudanam filed O.S.320/1973 on the file of District Munsif Court, Hindupur.
It is true that his father Dinakar John, Babu Danam, M.Robert,
Albert Joseph, P.D.Paranjyothi, Aseerwadam, G.George, M.B.S.
Prakash are the persons who registered the D.4 Association in the Registration No.148/1978 and he says before this Court that he does not know whether the D.5 to D.11 in the present suit along with Dinakar John, Babu Danam, M.Robert, Albert Joseph,
P.D.Paranjyothi, Aseerwadam, G.George, M.B.S. Prakash were opposing the Pastor Yesurathnam in all aspects. He does not have any knowledge about Ex.A.3 and A.4 till today and admitted the fact that his marriage was celebrated with the bride of another denomination and he further admitted that he has not filed any document to show that he was elected as Secretary of
D.4 church as stated in para No.3 of his chief affidavit.
K.R.Narasimha Prasad has filed chief affidavit on behalf of D.4 church prior to filing his chief affidavit and he does not know the contents of the chief affidavit filed by K.R.Narasimha Murthy.
The D.2 was recalled and sworn and further more cross- examined on 18.6.2010. In the cross-examination, he admitted that P.D.Paranjyothi worked as President to D.4 Association during his life time. He does not know whether P.D.Paranjyothi in the capacity of president and M.Dinakar (D.7) addressed any letter to the President, Boys Boarding Home, C&I G Mission,
Mission Compound, Hindupur. He further more stated that he
OS.4/2001 - 118 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 did not make any enquiries with his advocate about the documents filed by the plaintiff in this suit and further admitted that he has not gone through the documents filed by the plaintiff and admitted the fact that he knows the contents of Ex.A.37 and the contents mentioned in Ex.A.37 are true and correct. Ex.A.37 is a reply to Ex.A.36 and he knows about the filing of the suit in
O.S. No.205/1990 on the file of District Munsif Court, Hindupur
as referred in Ex.A.35 and further admitted that the contents mentioned in Ex.A.5 are true and correct. Ex.A.25 is the plaint copy in O.S.No.205/1990 on the file of District Munsif Court,
Hindupur. Ex.A.34 is the certified copy of the written statement in OS.No.205/1990 on the file of District Munsif Court, Hindupur and he denied that that all the suits relating to Church property have been filed to claim supremacy over the church properties and he further more stated that as per the original of Ex.B.1, some properties are allotted to D.1 and D.4 herein and further stated that it is not true to say that they do not have any documents such as sale deeds and the original documents to claim their rights prior to Ex.B.1 and further not admitted the fact that D.4 and D.1 do not have any documents to show that they have joint possession and enjoyment over the church properties and he has gone through the written contents filed by
D.4 in this suit. D.4 Members gave instructions for preparation of written statement and counter in this suit and he stated
before the Court that he does not know in whose custody the
documents are lying relating to the suit property and further clearly stated that Ex.B.1 was entered into between D.1 and D.4 and further more stated that they are claiming right and
OS.4/2001 - 119 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 possession over the properties in question under Ex.B.1 i.e., compromise deed and he has not admitted the fact that it is collusive document. This is the gist of evidence of DW.2.
44.Now let us evaluate the evidence of D.W.1. DW.1
Paul Santhi Kumar, son of Devanandam and he is the 13th defendant in the present suit. He deposed before the Court in the chief examination/in his chief affidavit that, the 1st defendant company is the absolute owner of the properties. The company owns properties in 3 states, namely, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Whereas in Andhra Pradesh, the properties of the company are situated in Anantapur District Viz., in Hindupur,
Pennukonda and Madakasira, Kalyandurg, Rayadurg and Kadiri.
DW.1 further admitted a fact that the 1st plaintiff is a small church at Hindupur Town and further stated that the 1st defendant company constructed Church Buildings in the early days and handed over the Church building to the local Christians for worship and administration. The 1st defendant company has permitted the local Christian to form a Deacon Board among them for the purpose of administration of church only. Similarly, the 1st plaintiff is formed. Originally, one Church Building is available in Hindupur. Later on disputes arose between the members of the church and groups have been formed. He further more stated in examination-in-chief that each group is claiming and formed their own Deacon board and also other two
Church buildings were constructed. The plaintiffs 2 to 8 and their supporters are in one group. The defendants 4 to 12 and 15 belong to one more group. There are series of litigations
OS.4/2001 - 120 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 among the group members. The defendants 4 to 12 and 15 have constructed a new Church building and he also stated that there was a compromise between the Directors of 1st defendant members and Defendants 2 to 4 members and some property was allotted to them under agreement dated 8.8.1998. The defendant No.1 is dealing with all the properties in Hindupur and they are absolute owners and they are disposing of the properties for the purpose of maintenance of the company. The defendant No.1 was not only selling the property at Hindupur and also in some other places like Penukonda, Madakasira and other places. The plaintiffs have no right to question the dealings of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 company has its own registered members and the members elect the
Chairman and directors periodically. The plaintiffs and other
Christians of Hindupur have never raised any dispute for the properties that are sold by the defendant No.1 company through its directions. If at all the plaintiff wants to dispute the alienations made by the defendant No.1, they have to question all the sale transactions made by the defendant No.1. The present suit is for limited properties. So the present suit is not maintainable.
DW.1 was thoroughly cross-examined. He stated in his cross-examination that there are two church buildings at
Hindupur, one is old church and another is new building. Both of them are located in T.S.No.26 and 39 and he does not know whether the old church building was constructed in the year 1984 by D.1. The church was established by D.1 only for the first time at Hindupur. D.4 constructed a new building and it
OS.4/2001 - 121 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 was inaugurated in the year 2004 and he does not know the cost of the church. He further admitted that there are disputes between D.1 and D.4. Proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C.
were initiated and he admitted a fact that the Executive
Magistrate gave a finding that D.4 was in possession of the
church in 1991 and Bangalore Mission i.e., D.1 filed a revision against the orders of Executive Magistrate. During the pendency of the revision, a compromise was effected between D.1 and D.4 on 8.8.1978. The compromise deed was written and signed by
Secretary Selvaraj, Chairman Raja Selvaraj, Members of D.4 also signed the same. The compromise deed was acted upon and some sales were made thereafter by D.1 and D.4 subsequent to the date of 8.8.1998. D.1 is not claiming any right over the church properties and the church at Hindupur. All the properties are under the management of D.4.
At this juncture, there was a strong objection from the plaintiffs advocate to mark the Ex.B.1 and finally the Court marked Ex.B.1 while exercising its powers under section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and this Court will evaluate the document Ex.B.1 at later stage of its judgment. This Ex.B.1 original document was filed in Crl. Revision Petition No.1/1993.
Survey No.100-2 to an extent of Ac.8.20 cents was sold away by
D.1 subsequent to 1998. There is still Ac.0.25 cents site remaining in Survey No.100-2 for D.1. Ac.8.20 cents was sold in favour of Shakir, Shamir, Jonna Ramaiah and others of Kadiri.
D.4 sold Ac.0.12 cents in favour of Official Recreation Club,
Hindupur in Survey No.101-1 and with that amount, they have raised the compound wall with the assistance of government
OS.4/2001 - 122 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 funds. Five plots in Survey No.35 were sold to Dr.Nirmala Reddy (D.16) by D.4. The properties are formerly belongs to D.1 prior to 1998 and subsequent to Ex.B.1 they are belongs to D.4. In further cross-examination, the witness stated that the properties allotted to D.4 under Ex.B.1 are being managed by D.4 after
Ex.B.1 and he further more stated in his evidence that he worked as Secretary of the 1st plaintiff church and further more admitted that from 1976 to June 1998 he was a member of the 1st plaintiff church and he participated in Gospel camps and bible school on behalf of the plaintiff No.1 and he admitted further fact that the photo confronted to him shows his participation in camps which is marked as Ex.A.43. Exs.A.44, A.45 and A.46 are the positive prints of the photographs and they are marked subject to objection as negatives are not filed (judgment) and further more admitted that one Yesurathnam was the Pastor of the plaintiff No.1 church, one B.Prakash Rao was the member of the Deacon Board and the Secretary of the plaintiff No.1 till 1994 and Yesurathnam was the Pastor up to 1997 and further admitted that after Prakash Rao, this witness was elected as
Secretary of the plaintiff No.1 from 1994 to 1996 and further more admitted that as on 19th August, 1996 one A.Selvaraj was the Secretary of D.1. The said Selvaraj died in 1998 and further more admitted that Ex.A.13 letter was addressed to him by
Silvaraj and received by him. Ex.A.10 letter was received by him from the plaintiff No.1 church in the month of May, 1998.
Ex.A.10 speaks about the procedure for allotment of the property by D.1 to any one and further admitted that there must be a meeting of all the Board of Directors of D.1 and passing of a
OS.4/2001 - 123 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 resolution, if any property of D.1 is to be parted with in favour of any third parties and he further more admitted that D.4 is the
Association registered under the Societies Registration Act and its Serial Number is 148/1978. He admitted that it is not a
Church and further admitted that there was only one church in the old building and he does not know whether some of the members have quarreled with Yesurathnam and formed a new association under 148/1978 as D.4 and he does not know C.C.
No.21/1978 initiated against Yesurathnam, Prakash and others on the file of Judl. First Class Magistrate, Hindupur/Madakasira and he knows D.5 to D.12 after 1980 and he has not admitted the fact that the signature contained in Ex.A.42(B) is his and he has not admitted another fact that in 1977 some Congregation members were expelled from the plaintiff No.1 church for dragging pastor Yesurathnam into a court of law and he is not aware of O.S.230/1973 and OS.519/1973 on the file of District
Munsif Court, Hindupur and proceedings thereunder and he has not admitted another fact that he was signatory to Ex.A.42(b) and he has admitted one more fact that he was member of
Deacon Board of the plaintiff No.1 on 14.1.1998 and Joshuva was the Pastor of the plaintiff No.1 at that time. The defendant
No.2 was the Chairman of D.1 as on January, 1998 and admitted that Ex.A.15 was addressed to the plaintiff No.1 when he was
Deacon Board member and he does not know the contents of
Ex.A.15 and further admitted that he was a member of the plaintiff No.1 and he was sent for training for one year at New
York on the recommendation of Yesurathnam with the funds of
D.1 in 1986 and further stated that there are 62 Churches under
OS.4/2001 - 124 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 the control of D.1. Ex.A.2 is the constitution of 62 churches under the control of D.1. Ex.A.2 is the constitution of 62 churches in Andhra Pradesh under the control of D.1 and further admitted that the name of D.4 was not mentioned in Ex.A.2.
The plaintiff No.1 is the member of the church and its name is mentioned in Ex.A.2. There is a constitution for D.1. Ex.A.1 is not the constitution of D.1. Ex.A.1 was served on them. The compound wall for cemetery was constructed 7 or 8 months back and not admitted the fact that separate committee was constituted in villages by D.1 to carry out its aims and objectives. Hindupur is one of the area of operation of D.1
Mission. There will be separate committee directly under the control of D.1 constituted for performing the objectives of D.1 and this witness became Director of D.1 in 1987 and further admitted that one should be member of the church which is under the control of D.1, to become Director. The General Body of D.1 company is consisting of 18 members, out of whom 7 members will be elected as directors and he has not admitted a fact that the Managing Committee of church was recognized by
D.1 and mentioned in Ex.A.2.
The witness stated before the Court that he is continuously Director of D.1 from 1987 till date and admitted the fact that O.S. No.205/1990 on the file of District Munsif Court,
Hindupur was filed by the Secretary of D.1, by name, Silvaraj and at that time, this witness was the Director and further more admitted that B. Yesurathnam was the Pastor/President of the plaintiff No.1 in 1990 and also Director of D.1. One Prakash Rao was the Secretary of the plaintiff No.1. One Muniyappa Pal was
OS.4/2001 - 125 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 the Deacon Board member at that time and he has not admitted the contents of para No.7 of Ex.A.25 are correct and further not admitted there will be field committee as per Ex.A.1 in every place to manage the properties of D.1 locally and that he was deposing falsely and intentionally about the existence of the field committee and further stated that it is not true to say the constitution under Ex.A.1 is the constitution of D.1 as ontoday also and furthermore not admitted the suggestion that the properties acquired at Hindupur by D.1 are under the effective control and management of the plaintiff No.1 church and also not admitted the fact that the plaintiff No.1 alone had the right to manage and enjoy the suit schedule properties for the benefit of the 1st plaintiff and he is the person, who is actively participating in religious activities and other activities of the plaintiff church as Secretary. He admitted his signature in the
Minutes Book at pages 6 to 9 under resolution dated 11.3.1994 and further admitted that the said resolution at page No.8 that the plaintiff church is recognized by the 1st defendant. Ex.A.47 is the Minutes Book and Ex.A.47 (a) is the relevant entry at pages 6 to 9 and also further admitted that they have passed a resolution on 1.11.1996 to spend an amount of Rs.25,000/- for fencing of the property of the plaintiff No.1 church. Ex.A.47 (b) is the said resolution dated 1.11.1996. It is also admitted that the property referred to under Ex.A.13 was ordered to be fenced as per Ex.A.47 (b) resolution. This witness worked as Secretary to the plaintiff till second half of 1997 and further stated that he continued as a congregation member of the plaintiff No.1 even after his resignation as Secretary. The resolution passed by the
OS.4/2001 - 126 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 1st defendant will come to his knowledge as a Director of the 1st defendant and further stated that under Ex.A.10, D.1 passed resolution asking the plaintiff No.1 to apply for permission to construct a church at Hindupur. Ex.A.16 is the communication from D.1 in favour of the 1st plaintiff. Exs.A.8, A.9 and A.10 are issued by the 1st defendant in favour of P.W.1 and he also admitted that Ex.A.12 is issued by the 1st defendant in favour of the 1st plaintiff and he also admitted that Ex.A.12 is issued by the 1st defendant in favour of the 1st plaintiff. He was the Board of Directors in 1998 of the 1st defendant. Ex.A.15 is the resolution passed by the 1st defendant and sent from the 1st defendant and he has not admitted the fact that he was expelled from the Primary Membership of the 1st plaintiff in the year
January, 2010 and he has not admitted the fact that he was running a church under the name of the 1st defendant at
Abadpet, Hindupur since 4.7.2000 and not from March, 2000 as suggested and he has not admitted the fact that he is raising funds for his church. In August, 1998 there were seven
Directors for the 1st defendant including himself. The witness again stated that there may be 5 or 7 directors in August, 1998 and he did not remember exactly. There is a written resolution in the Board of Directors meeting prior to Ex.B.1 and subsequent to Ex.B.1. The resolutions will be available with the 1st defendant. The records of the 1st defendant are in the custody of the Secretary of the 1st defendant and it is not mentioned in
Ex.B.1 about the resolution having been passed by the Board of
Directors of the 1st defendant authorizing to enter into the transaction under Ex.B.1 and further admitted that at the time of
OS.4/2001 - 127 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 execution of Ex.B.1, Pastor B. Yesurathnam was died and further more admitted that the signatory B.John David Son is the son of late Yesurathnam and further also admitted that under Ex.B.1 some property is offered by the defendant No.4 in favour of the family of late B. Yesurathnam and not admitted the fact that he was induced by the defendant No.4 to sign on Ex.B.1 and he was offered Ac.25.00 cents site and he further stated that the signatures of the Chairman and Secretary found on Ex.B.1 are not made by them and they are forged signatures and further admitted that the written statement filed in this case contain the signatures of the defendants 2 and 3 and he has not admitted the variance in the signatures of the defendants 2 and 3 on the written statement and Ex.B.1 and further not admitted that he has forged the signatures of the defendants 2 and 3 as induced by the defendant No.4 on Ex.B.1 and further more admitted the suggestion that transaction under Ex.B.1 is without the knowledge and approval of the 1st defendant and it is his brainchild and not admitted the suggestion that he joined with the defendant No.4 and its members in order to knock away the properties of the 1st plaintiff church and further not admitted the suggestion that Ex.B.1 is created by this witness, John Davidson and the members of the defendant No.4 to create un-existed rights in them and not admitted further fact that Ex.B.1 is not binding on the 1st plaintiff and the object of any church is to evangelize the people, more particularly downtrodden.
The witness clearly admitted thatthe 1st plaintiff church at Hindupur was established by the 1st defendant to carry out the aims and objectives of the 1st defendant and he has not
OS.4/2001 - 128 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 admitted that to carry out the objectives of the 1st defendant, some properties were purchased by the 1st defendant with the concurrence of the 1st plaintiff. But, he cannot say that the properties at Hindupur were purchased with the designated funds of the 1st plaintiff and he did not see the sale documents and he was further examined and admitted that he addressed a letter to the 1st defendant Mission dated 4.4.1996 in the capacity of the Secretary of the 1st plaintiff Church, which is Ex.A.48. He addressed letter Ex.A.48 to the 1st defendant Mission intimating about the election of Deacon Board Members. Ex.A.48 was addressed on 4.4.1996 and he also addressed Ex.A.49 letter in the capacity of the Secretary of the plaintiff Church to D.1
Mission intimating about newly elected Deacon Board Members of the plaintiff Church and further admitted that once in two years elections of the plaintiff church Deacon Board Members will be held and the same will be intimated to D.1 Mission. Ex.A.50 was addressed by him to B. Yesurathnam, Pastor. As per
Ex.A.50, all the maters will be placed in the General Body
Meeting of the Church and resolutions will be passed accordingly.
The witness volunteers such resolutions will be passed only on the local administration of the Churches and further more admitted that A.S.Selvaraju, son of Abbu Moses was the General
Secretary of the 1st defendant and he does not remember whether himself and Yesurathnam and Raja Selvaraju were among the Directors of the 1st defendant in the year 1990 and he does not remember whether himself, D.Prakash Rao and others were Deacon Board Members of the plaintiff church in the year 1990 and further more admitted a fact that A.Selvaraju
OS.4/2001 - 129 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 filed a suit in OS.No.205/1990 on the file of District Munsif
Court, Hindupur against the defendant No.4 herein and others for declaration of title and consequential injunction. Ex.A.25 is the plaint copy in OS.No.205/1990 on the file of District Munsif
Court, Hindupur and he was the Secretary of the plaintiff church even on 9.8.1996, so also in the year 1997. He was Deacon board member of the plaintiff church in the year 1998 also.
Witness voluntarily stated before this Court that that after 8.8.1998 the Mission went to agreement with the defendant
No.4 regarding the settlement of the properties of the Church pending before the Court. The resolution was signed by him as a Deacon Board member on 21.4.1998 and he has not admitted the fact that in order to take decisions relating to the affairs of the plaintiff church, the matters will be discussed in the General
Body Meeting and resolutions can be passed to that effect. As per the resolution dated 21.4.1998 the election was also one of the Agenda which is Ex.A.51. The election of the plaintiff church will be held as per Telugu Churches of 1995, which touches the constitution of the 1st defendant. He was the Director of the 1st defendant Mission from 1992 to 2004. He was not aware of the fact that the members of the defendant No.4 removed roof of the Church in which the plaintiff was conducting prayers and he was not the member of the Deacon Board in the year 2000 and he has not admitted the fact that he himself and B.Boddy
Abraham, T.M.Vijaya Bhaskar were members of Deacon Board of the plaintiff church on 3.8.2000 and he was not aware of the resolution dated 3.8.2000 of the plaintiff church and he has not admitted the fact that since he has acted adverse to the interest
OS.4/2001 - 130 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 of the plaintiff church, he was expelled from the membership and Deacon Board of the Church and notices were also issued to him in pursuance of the said resolution. One Raja Selvar Raju was the Chairman of the 1st defendant Mission on 21.7.2005 and his cross-examination was started on 3.5.2005 in this case and he was giving evidence on behalf of the defendants 1, 2, 3 to 13 and 14 and he knows the properties in Survey No.100-2 an extent of Ac.4.00. The said properties were purchased to fulfill the motives of the 1st defendant, but not the specific purpose of
Christians of Hindupur. The main objectives of the 1st defendant to is to evangelize the unreached parts of India, one such aim is to establish the church in India, with that aim only self serving and self existing churches established in India, one among at
Hindupur. He did not remember whether the church was established at Hindupur in the year 1836 and he has not admitted the fact that all the affairs relating to local church is looking after by the General Body of church and he further admitted that to manage the local affairs of the Church, Deacon
Board members will be elected and not admitted that the witness being Deacon Board member looking after the properties of D.1, such as encroachments of the properties and he was supervising the properties of D.1 Mission as Director along with other
Directors, namely, Yesu Rathnam and Muniyappa Paul and he does not know whether the potential value of Survey No.100 and other properties was abnormally increased in the year 2000 at
Hindupur and further stated that he was performing prayers in a rented house at Abadpet, Hindupur as on 31.1.2001. The letter
dated 31.1.2001 was addressed to them by the D.1 Mission.
OS.4/2001 - 131 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Ex.A.52 was such letter and it was marked subject to objection and this witness does not know whether the original of Ex.A.52 was with D.1 Mission. The witness stated that he signed the written statement filed on behalf of the 1st defendant. He gave instructions to his advocate to prepare written statement in this case and stated that the contents mentioned in his written statement are true and correct and further not admitted that the witness is blindly supporting D.4, therefore he is avoiding to give proper answers. Ex.B.1 agreement relates to D.4 church only and furthermore not admitted that because he signed on Ex.B.1, he was demanding Ac.0.25 cents in Survey No.100-2 and further more admitted that earlier to Ex.B.1 only D.1 Mission was having absolute rights as the owner of the properties of the D.1 and further facts are already cross-examination. He stated before this Court that he signed Ex.B.1 after going through the contents of Ex.B.1 and he has not signed blindly in order to knock away the properties of the Church. This is the evidence of DW.1.
45.DW.3 is the 17th defendant in the suit at present and he is also in charge of the litigation on behalf of the 18th defendant. He deposed before the Court that they purchased together three items under registered sale deeds dated 16.2.2001 for Rs.1,40,000/-, for Rs.1,35,000/- and for
Rs.60,000/- under distinct registered sale deeds. The 1st item measuring on South 300 feet, on North 300 feet, North-south on east 100 feet and North-south on western side 107 feet, 2nd item measuring North-South on eastern side 94‘-0‖, North-South on western side 100 feet, South (East-west) 300 feet and North (East-West) 300 feet, and 3rd item measuring North-South on
OS.4/2001 - 132 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 eastern side 94‘-0‖, North-South on western side 100 feet,
South (East-West) 300‘-0‖, North-South on western side 100 feet, South (East-West) 300‘-0‖ and North (East-West) 300‘-0‖, and further 2nd item under registered sale deed dated 16.2.2001 for Rs.60,000/- measuring East-West 145‘-0‖ and North-South 30‘-0‖ in Survey No.101-1A of Hindupur and further also another item measuring on East 40‘, on West 30‘, on South 75‘-0‖ and on North 120‘-0 in Survey No.100-2 another item measuring
East-West 40‘-0‖, on South 40‘-0‖ and on North: 48‘-0‖, from the 1st defendant Mission represented by its Directors and the
Chairman and took possession of the said property.
The witness furthermore deposed that it is the absolute property of the 1st defendant. It is submitted that the witness and the defendant No.18 have no concern to the other property as shown in the schedule ‗A‘ of the plaint schedule. The very sale deed furnished is wrong. The witness deposed that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to question the very sale deeds of witness himself and 18th defendant. They submit that all the co- owners in Survey No.100-2 and Survey No.101-2 have not been impleaded as parties who are all co-owners. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
The witness further deposed that the plaintiffs have not challenged the sale transactions of the 1st defendant and other properties, but the suit is filed only for the property of the witness and 18th defendant and others, which has absolutely no value when compared to the property of others concerned. On this simple, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The suit is for
OS.4/2001 - 133 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 partial relief of the transactions is not maintainable. The major portion of the adjacent property was sold to third parties. Those sale transactions are not challenged. The Encumbrance
Certificate for the suit Survey Number filed by them clearly shows that there are other transactions also. Hence, the present suit as framed is not maintainable.
The witness furthermore deposed before the Court that the plaintiffs are the Deacon Board appointed by the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs have no right in the suit property.
On the other hand the plaintiffs are admitting that the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property and more especially, the witness deposed that no relief is sought for against the 1st defendant in the suit. So, the question of challenging the sale transactions of the 1st defendant does not arise. On this ground alone, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
The witnesses furthermore deposed before the Court that the 18th defendant had made extensive enquiries regarding the 1st defendant‘s right to alienate the properties in favour of third parties. Their enquiries also reveal that the 1st defendant‘s company was registered under Indian Companies Act 7/1913 and the Articles of Association clinchingly shows that the administration of the company lies with the Executive Council appointed by the conference consisting of three or more members who shall from time to time appoint a Secretary and
Treasurer and may vest in the Secretary and the Treasurer for the time being respectively such powers and duties as may be thought expedient and shall meet from time to time to transact
OS.4/2001 - 134 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 business, the majority of the members of the Executive Council shall form a quorum. Members of Executive Council shall hold office for four years, and shall retire one annually, in rotation, such retiring member to be eligible for immediate re-election by the Annual Conference. Any vacancy during the year shall be filled by nomination by the remaining members of the Executive
Council, said nomination to be ratified at the next succeeding
Annual conference. Every member of the Executive Council shall be deemed to be a Director within the meaning of the Indian
Companies Act.
The witness also deposed that relating to other aspects,
Articles 6 to 16 deals as follows:
6) A general meeting shall be held once a year at such time and place as may be prescribed by the council which meeting shall be called the Annual Conference and be regarded as an ordinary General Meeting. At least ten days notice shall be given by the Secretary specifying the place and day of meeting.
7) The council may, when the need arises, call an extraordinary General Meeting or five members in writing may as the Council to call for an extraordinary
General Meeting.
8) Every General Meeting shall be called a Conference.
9) A quorum at a meeting shall consist of ten members.
10) Every full member shall have one vote.
OS.4/2001 - 135 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
11) The members present shall elect a Chairman for the
Meeting.
12) A minute book shall be kept and entries therein made by the Secretary or some other person appointed for the purpose by the Mission.
13) The accounts of the Mission shall be audited annually, the calendar year being regarded as the financial year.
He also submitted that whatever earlier principles and constitution were there, they deemed to have been extinguished.
The witness furthermore submitted that the said company possessed of various immovable properties and assets situated inter alia in Coimbatore, Salem, Dharmapuri and
Nellagriri Districts in Tamil Nadu and in Ananthapuramu district of Andhra Pradesh and city of Bangalore and District in
Karnataka in Gondy and Basthi District of Uttar Pradesh are being administered by the Secretary, Directors and the Executive
Council and also deposed that number of properties have been alienated by the company at various places by the Minutes of
Board of Directors. One such Minutes signed by the then
Chairman and the Secretary, H. George W. McCormick, dated 22-1-1974 is as follows:- ‗It is hereby resolved by the Directors of the Ceylon and
India General Mission to confer on and execute in favour of
Mr. B.E. Tozer, a General Power of Attorney authorizing him to sell, transfer or dispose of any or all or the Mission properties situated in Hindupur, Dharmavaram,
Madakasira, Penukonda, Kalyanadurg and Kadiri Taluk of
OS.4/2001 - 136 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh, and in the City of
Bangalore and District as well as in the city of Mysore,
Karnataka, at his discretion, for such price and to sign the necessary documents relating thereto on behalf of the
Mission. It is further resolved that in respect of these transactions, the General power of Attorney in favour of
Mr. B.E. Tozer be signed by two Directors of the Mission,
W.G. Nelson and another and the Secretary and registered by the Registrar in Bangalore.‘
The witness also deposed that subsequently a power attorney was given to B.E. Tozer for alienation of properties in pursuance of the resolution of Board of Directors on 8-11-1978.
In pursuance of the said power attorney, B.E. Tozer had alienated vast properties all over India and also in Anantapur
District. The plaintiffs are well aware of the said alienations.
The Board of Directors or the Executive Council never authorized at any stage to carry out the properties of the Company at
Hindupur. The plaintiffs have nothing to do with the activities of the defendant No.1. Since the defendant No.1 is registered under Indian Companies Act to look into the very objectivities and the constitution of the company. The plaintiffs are neither
Directors nor General Board Members. Even otherwise, they are at liberty to challenge the resolutions in appropriate Forum and see that the company is dissolved. This Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the company‘s activities which is registered under the Indian Companies Act.
OS.4/2001 - 137 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
The witness also deposed that the assets are vested with the company and it is for the Registrar to verify the audit reports. Even the very Certificate issued by the Registrar of
Companies dated 12.3.1928 discloses that it is the intention of the association to apply its profits and income to promote those purposes and that no dividends are payable to its members.
Hence, the administration of the company can be challenged so far as the appropriation of funds is concerned by the competent authority before the competent Forum. The company is not debarred from alienating the properties. The company will have its own checks and counter checks.
The witness also deposed that the assets of the company are not attached to any Mission, Church or any
Religious Institutions. If the assets belong to a particular
Charitable Institution or Religious institution attached to any particular Temple or Church, any devotee or member of that
Church can question the appropriation or misappropriation subject to its By-laws. The plaintiffs were not at all recognized as the agents of the defendant No.1. If so, they could have challenged the resolutions of the defendant No.1 Company at various points of time and reported the matter to the Registrar of Companies. Even assuming but admitting that the defendant
No.1 company even if has directed the plaintiffs to look after the properties at Hindupur, it does not mean that they have checks and counter checks over the transactions of the defendant No.1
Company. Despite the fact remains that the company by its appropriate resolutions has been spending huge amounts all over the world wherever the company has got its branches for
OS.4/2001 - 138 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Noble purposes and achieving its drift of carrying its Mission and hence this Hon‘ble Court has no jurisdiction.
The witness further deposed that the plaintiffs are so interested in the company‘s properties; they ought to have challenged number of alienations transacted by the defendant
No.1 company and it is also submitted that the plaintiffs know pretty well that the defendant No.1 had sold away Ac.6-10.31 cents to various purchasers of its properties at Hindupur. On 11.12.1999 one Jonna Rajendra Prasad and M. Maheswara Naidu had purchased Ac.2-74 cents in S.No.100-2 under the registered sale deeds dated 10.12.1999 and 11.12.1999, likewise one Pariki
Shameer Basha of Kadiri had purchased Ac.0-69.31 cents in
S.No.100-2, likewise one Mohammad Ghouse, Syed Mahaboob
Basha, Shaik Musthafa, G. Vijayalakshmi, G. Nageswari, Dr. S.
Ravindranath Reddy, K. Aruna, P. Suseela, M. Henna Usha
Indrani, S. Surya Kantham, residents of Kadiri, B. Habeeb Prem
Sagar of Hindupur, B. Nirmala, D. Sasikala, Reddi Kumar and
Sreedhar Reddy purchased various extents in S.No.100-2 of
Hindupur from the 1st defendant‘s company under various sale deeds in the year 1999. Likewise the witness and the defendant
No.18 also purchased in S.No.100-2. If at all the plaintiffs are acting honestly, they are bound to challenge all these transactions and all these transactions are only in S.No.100-2 and 101-1A which are shown as items 1 and 2 of the plaint ‗A‘ schedule. It is submitted that all these persons are proper and necessary parties for proper adjudication of the above matter.
Hence the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On this score also the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine. Since
OS.4/2001 - 139 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 there are number of alienations and the valuation furnished in the plaint is not correct and on this score also the suit is liable to be dismissed.
The witness further deposed that he has filed his documents of sale deeds dated 16.2.2001 as under document
No.509/2001 for Rs.1,35,000/-, registered sale deed dated 16.2.2001 as under document No.508/2001 for Rs.1,40,000/- and registered sale deed dated 16.2.2001 under document
No.510/2001 for Rs.60,000/- executed by the defendant No.1 and its Directors in their favour and the same are marked as
Exs.B-40, B-41 and B-42. Ex.B-43 is the registration copy of the
General Power Attorney executed by the defendant No.1
Company in favour of its Chairman B.E. Tozer dated 8.11.1987.
This witness was cross examined at length. The witness deposed in the cross-examination that he knows the contents of the chief-affidavit and also Ex.B-40 is the registered sale deed
dated 16.2.2001 for Rs.1,40,000/- executed by the 1st defendant
company in favour of the defendants No.17 and 18. Ex.B-41 is the registered sale deed for Rs.1,35,000/- and he has given the details of the properties that he has purchased in the first Para of the cross-examination and he has further admitted that he purchased properties under Exs.B-40, B-41 and B-42 which are three different sale deeds on 16.2.2001. They purchased the properties from the 1st defendant and he admitted a fact that he does not know how properties are vested with the 1st defendant.
He has not seen the resolutions pertaining to year 2000 and 2001 of 1st defendant relating to the properties in question and
OS.4/2001 - 140 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 he deposed before the Court that he has not obtained any permission from the District Court, Ananthapuramu prior to purchase of the properties from the 1st defendant. To his knowledge, the 1st defendant incorporated under Companies Act and he knows that a company should have Bye-laws, Articles of
Association, Memorandum of Association and Constitution
Principles and Practice. His advocate has gone through the contents of the constitution Principles and Practice of the 1st defendant company. He enquired with whom the properties vested in accordance with the constitution and Principles of the 1st defendant company. His advocate told him that the properties in question vested with the 1st defendant prior to their purchase. His advocate did not tell him that the administration of the properties of the 1st defendant company. So also he did not enquire the same. The person nominated under Ex.B-43 has not executed any sale deeds in pursuance of Ex.B-43 and further more stated that no document has been filed to show that how
General Power of Attorney agent for Directors, namely, S. Albert is competent to convey the property. No document is filed to ascertain how the four persons signed in the documents are competent to execute the sale deeds and he has not admitted the fact that defendant No.15 arranged the sales covered under
Exs.B-40 to B-42. Mr. James (D.15) was the identifying and attesting witness to the Exs.B-40 to B-42. He knows the defendant No.15 personally, but he does not know his avocation whether he was working in Secretariat in Hyderabad and he does not know where the defendant No.15 was staying whether at
Hindupur or at Hyderabad by the date of execution of Exs.B-40
OS.4/2001 - 141 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 to B-42 sale deeds. Mr. M.A. Jayakumar (D.9) is identifying and attesting witness to all three sale deeds under Exs.B-40 to B-42.
Mr. Dinakar (D.7) was attesting witness for the above said three sale deeds and he does not know whether D.7 is the brother of
D.15 and it is true to suggest that there is a Church by name
Ceylon & India Mission Church situated at Mission Compound,
Hindupur and the said Church is existing in Hindupur since 100 years and he does not know whether the plaintiff Church was recognized by the 1st defendant. He does not know whether the plaintiff church possessed any landed properties or not. He heard the mother document relating to the properties covered under Exs.B-40 to B-42 stands in the name of the 1st defendant.
He does not know whether the defendants No.7 and 15 and their followers are claiming supremacy over the Church properties and he does not know abutting to the east of the property covered under Exs.B-40 to B-42 sale deeds, there is a land of Syndicate
Farmers Co-operative Society to an extent of Ac.1.00. He does not remember whether he was also one of the participants for the auction of the Ac.1.00 land of the Syndicate Farmers Co- operative Society in pursuance of the decree passed by the
Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur. He does not remember whether
H.Sekhar, Proprietor of Ajantha Hotel was the highest bidder in
Court auction for Rs.22,00,000/- and odd. He does not know whether the properties of Proprietor of Ajantha Hotel sold the same property to an extent of Ac.1.00 for Rs.34,00,000/- to one
Maluguru Ramakrishna Reddy. The total extent of the properties covered under Exs.B-40 to B-42 is Ac.1.66 cents. There is a property of Officers‘ Club on two sides to an extent of Ac.0.10
OS.4/2001 - 142 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 cents abutting the land covered under Exs.B-40 to B-42 sale deeds and he does not know whether D.4 to D.11 and others have sold the property to the Officers‘ Club and he does not know whether the 1st defendant has filed the suit against
Officers‘ Club, D.4 and its office bearers in O.S.No.205/1990 relating to the property sold to the Officers‘ Club and he has not gone through the documents filed by the plaintiff along with plaint, but his advocate has gone through the same.
The witness was further cross-examined on 23.7.2010.
The witness deposed that he had knowledge about the functioning of the 1st defendant Mission and he is not are about any resolution passed by the 1st defendant Mission property covered under Exs.B-40 to B-42 before or after the purchase.
He did not enquire how many Directors were there as on Exs.B- 40 to B-42 sale deeds and he did not see any resolution of the 1st defendant Mission subsequent to 1974 and further more deposed that it was not mentioned in Exs.B-40 to B-42 sale deeds when the company shown in the documents was registered and he has not admitted suggestion that the witness himself and attesting witnesses of those sale deeds and four signatories on the sale deed colluded together and got created
Exs.B-40 to B-42 sale deeds with similar name of C.I. & G.
Mission with Registration No.608/1956 which was registered under Companies Act and furthermore not admitted that the four signatories of those sale deeds are not competent to represent the 1st defendant Mission and furthermore also not admitted that the members of the defendant No.4 Society and the 15th defendant and himself and attestors and identifying witnesses of
OS.4/2001 - 143 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 those sale deeds colluded together and got created the above sale deeds in order to gain non-existing rights and he has not also admitted that the plaintiff church has been in exclusive possession of the properties in question by the date of alleged sale deeds covered under Exs.B.40 to B.42 sale deeds and the plaintiff church has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties in question including the properties covered under Exs.B-40 to B-42 as a committee constituted by the provisions under Ex.A.1 and further not admitted that in spite of probating orders against the witness granted by this Court, they tried to lay out in the properties in question. He has not preferred any appeal or revision against the orders restraining him from alienating the properties and not admitted another fact that his vendors have no right whatsoever to convey the properties covered under Exs.B-40 to B-42 in violation of Ex.A.1 and further not admitted that such sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff church. This is the gist of the cross-examination of the DW.3.
46.Now let us see the evidence of DW.4. He deposed in the chief-examination that the plaintiffs were not in possession of any properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The defendant No.4 alone was and is in possession and control of the properties of C.I. & G. Mission Church situated at Hindupur. The defendant No.4 was and is the proper person to manage and to deal with the properties of the C.I. & G. Mission Church at
Hindupur. The allegations of the plaintiffs that the defendant
No.5 to 12 sold the property mentioned in schedule ‗B‘ of the plaint to him under a registered sale deed dated 22.3.2000 and
OS.4/2001 - 144 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 25.5.2000 is not correct. It is the defendant No.4 that sold the property to him under the registered sale deeds dated 23.3.2000 and 25.5.2000 for a consideration of Rs.1,90,500/- and
Rs.2,72,500/- respectively and the defendant No.4 inducted him into possession. This witness spent considerable amount to construct compound wall around the land purchased by him.
The transactions of the purchase under the two sale deeds and construction of the compound wall were done under the very nose of the plaintiffs No.2 to 8. At no point of time the plaintiffs
No.2 to 8 raised any objection for taking possession and constructing compound wall. The plaintiffs, having kept quiet when he was spending good lot of money over the property purchased by him, are not entitled to raise any objections now.
The plaintiffs are deemed to have acquiesced in his rights. The plaintiffs being representatives of the 1st defendant are not competent to question the acts of the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs being a registered society is not entitled to file this suit.
The witness furthermore deposed that there was dispute between the defendants 1 and 4 in regard to the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C., 1973 before Executive Magistrate,
Hindupur. The D.4 was held to be in possession of the property in those proceedings. The 1st defendant filed a Revision in
Cr.R.P. No. 1/1993 before the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Ananthapuramu. Subsequently, the 1st defendant got the
Revision dismissed by taking few properties. Hence the order of the Executive Magistrate, Hindupur under section 145 Cr.P.C., 1973 became final. The plaintiffs, as agents of the 1st defendant, prohibited from questioning the same. The
OS.4/2001 - 145 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 properties purchased by him was retained by the defendant
No.4. The D.4 sold the properties to him for consideration under two registered sale deeds. Through Exs.A.19 and A.20, the witness was inducted into possession. This is the gist of chief- examination of DW.4.
Now, let us see cross-examination. DW.4 deposed before the Court that the sellers in both sale deeds executed on 23.2.2000 and also on 25.5.2000 which are marked as Exs.A.19 and A.20. It is further admitted that the vendors, by name,
Ceylon & India General Mission Church, which was registered under Societies Registration Act, bearing Regd. No.148/1978 represented by its President and others are his vendors and he has verified the necessary link documents before he purchased and he has not admitted the suggestion that the vendors themselves do not have any better title and possession. This is the gist of evidence in the cross-examination of DW.4.
47.Now let us evaluate each issue framed by this
Hon‘ble Court in accordance with the facts, those are stated by
the P.W.1 and D.Ws.1 to 4.
48.Issue No.1:- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled
to the declaration of their right that plaintiffs 2 to 8 are
entitled to use, manage and administer plaint 'A' and 'B'
schedule items in accordance with constitution, principles
and practice, as alleged?
49.The quotable quote of this Court is that
OS.4/2001 - 146 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 judgment must flow from the law, not from the mouth of the judge.
and this Court further quotes that,--
Judge should discuss the matters in detail and come
to conclusion. Judge should not come to conclusion
and discuss and decide the matter according to his
conclusion.
As such a detailed discussion is made supra and the issues are answered according to above discussion.
50.The first prayer of the plaint is to declare the right of the 1st plaintiff Church and plaintiffs No.2 to 8 and pastor in office and Members of the Deacon Board, to use, manage and administer the plaint ‗A‘ and ‗B‘ schedule properties in accordance with the constitution, principles and practice of the first plaintiff
Church and first defendant Mission. Accordingly, the first Issue is framed.
51.The prayer of the plaintiffs comes under section 34 Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Section 34: A contract in writing may be first
rectified and then, if the plaintiff has so prayed in his
plaint and the Court thinks fit, specifically enforced.
52.The discussion of above section: Any person entitled to any legal character.
What is the legal character of the plaintiff No.1?
and
What is the legal character of the plaintiffs 2 to 9 is a question?
OS.4/2001 - 147 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 or any person entitled to any right as to any property,
What is the right of the plaintiff No.1? and
How is he entitled to any right as to any property?
53.The plaintiff No.1 has no legal character. It is a church in illusion. It is neither registered, nor recognized by the defendant No.1 Mission. So, no legal character is attached to the 1st plaintiff, similarly, the plaintiffs 2 to 9. The second discussion above is any person entitled to any right as to any property. The 1st plaintiff has no right and is not entitled to any right as to any property of the suit schedule properties, he is unknown to the 1st defendant.
54.Any person entitled means: he must have a title.
Whether the title of the suit schedule property in the names of the plaintiffs No.1 to 9?
Are the plaintiffs No.1 to 9 in the possession of the property to claim even adverse possession?
How can these plaintiffs can seek declaration without any entitlement?
55.A perusal of section 34 would reveal that any person claiming title to legal character or to any right as to any property is entitled to institute suit against another person, who is denying or interested in denying his right or title to such right.
The use of the expression any right as to any property is very wide because it would be enough if the right claimed is related to property in question. It is also evident that a right as to property signifies to any particular property. A declaration of
OS.4/2001 - 148 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 such right must be existing one and it does not need necessarily be vested right. The logical corollary would thus be that a person having contingent right in the property may also sue for declaration. It is different matter that the Court in its discretion may refuse to make such declaration by concluding that claim made was too remote and the declaration given would be in defectual. Therefore, the question would be one of the discretion rather than jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit.
The plaintiffs 1 to 8 are neither sons of the defendants to claim the legal character or they do not have any title to the property.
Hence they are not entitled for declaration. The right of the plaintiffs is neither vested right, nor contingent right. In this suit, the question of legal character does not arise. The question of entitlement as to any property is the only easement. No suit is maintainable under this section, unless the plaintiff is a person who has some legal right as to any property and the declaration sought is that he is entitled to such right.
56.It was held in Mahammad Abdul vs. Finalay
Fleming Company, AIR 2008:
Right to property referred to in this section is
plaintiff’s individual right in a particular property,
not a general right which he possess in common that
all or some of his fellow citizens unless some cloud is cast upon is against own title or right.
57.The P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that as many as 64 councils were there. Then it must be a representative suit under Or.1, R.8. Unless these 64 councils
OS.4/2001 - 149 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 are added as parties because they are necessary parties, the suit can be dismissed.
58.The plaintiffs substantiated this issue, it appears that they have pleaded in the plaint in the following lines:
The first defendant mission carries out its mission field, aims and objects in various parts of country dividing mission field into districts and field committees and one such field committee is at Hindupur. The first plaintiff is duly constituted field committee in accordance with the constitution Articles, principles and practice of 1st defendant mission. The plaintiff No.2 is the duly appointed Pastor and plaintiffs No.3 to 8 are duly constituted committee of the
Deacon board of the plaintiff No.1, as pre-appointment orders and resolutions dated 25.9.1999 and 25.6.2000 (vide lines 8 to 14 of para No.4 in the plaint).
The first plaintiff is the permanent Body and its Deacon
Board Members are elected once in two years in accordance with the rules framed by the first defendant Mission under the name and style of C.I. & G.M. Telugu Churches Councils, 1995 amending the previous Rules. The said Rules are framed for better governance and for carrying out the
Mission objects and aims of the Church, established by the first defendant Mission at Hindupur. (para 4 of the plaint).
59.The plaintiffs tried to infuse life into a non- existent imaginary body. In this regard, the plaintiffs are extensively referred in the plaint by referring to stray
OS.4/2001 - 150 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 unconnected, irrelevant alleged letters said to have been addressed to them in their pleadings from the defendant No.1.
The plaintiffs categorically admitted that the suit schedule property mentioned in the plaint are purchased by the 1st defendant and the documents are in the name and in the possession of the 1st defendant. Out of the letters that are addressed by the 1st defendant, no letters disclosed that the plaintiff No.1 to 9 are recognized as Field committee and the properties of the suit schedule are given to the plaintiffs No.1 to 8 for management and administration of ‗A‘, ‗B‘ schedule property. Even if the ‗A‘, ‗B‘ schedule properties are given to the plaintiffs No.1 to 8, the defendant No.1/Mission is at liberty to withdraw the same. Ex.A.1 does not support the claim of the plaintiffs. It is very clearly stated that the 1st plaintiff and the remaining plaintiffs are temporary body entrusted with the maintenance of the local Church and very clearly further stated that the plaintiffs cannot claim any status of permanent body and they cannot claim any rights over the properties of the 1st defendant. At no point of time, the property of the 1st defendant is given to the possession of the plaintiffs either for management or for any other purpose. The 1st plaintiff and its members given permission only to worship in the Church and worshipping is a civil right and the plaintiffs are entitled to file a suit to decide their right to worship and not to declare the properties of D.1
Mission to manage and control the properties.
60.P.W.1 categorically admitted that “I do not
know the nature of the properties in Hindupur. I know
the location of the properties. There are no documents in
OS.4/2001 - 151 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
the possession of the 1 st plaintiff/Church as regards the
properties of Hindupur. There is only one Church- Ceylon
& India General Mission.” This piece of evidence is sufficient to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs. This Court may be permitted to repeat that the 1st plaintiff/Church is not a registered body. It is not recognized by D.1 mission. It is true that the plaintiffs are not Deacon Board members of the Church headed by
Yesurathnam and there is no correspondence between the 1st defendant and the 7 plaintiffs. Pastor is honourary post and he receives the salary, is the evidence in the plaint and chief- affidavit and evidence of P.W.1. If Yesurathnam is a Pastor, how these plaintiffs claimed the properties of the 1st defendant
Mission is a question?
Under section 9 of C.P.C., the plaintiffs are entitled to file a suit for Pastor post and not to claim the property.
Under the above discussion, the Issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
61.Now Issues No.2 to 6 can be clubbed together as the issues are whether the plaintiffs are entitled to cancellation of different documents executed by the 1st defendant/Mission?
Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to
cancellation of the sale deed dated 22.3.2000 in favour of D-15 executed by D-4 to D-12 for Rs.1,90,500/- in respect of item
No.1 of plaint 'B' schedule ?
Issue No.3: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to
cancellation of sale deed date 25.5.2000 in favour of D-16, executed by D-4 to D-12 for Rs. 2,72,000-00 in respect of items 2 and 3 of plaint 'B' Schedule ?
Issue No.4: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to
cancellation of sale deed dt. 16-2-2001 in
OS.4/2001 - 152 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 favour of D-17 and D-18 executed by D-2, D-3, D-13 and D-14 for Rs.1,40,000/- in respect of item No.4 of plaint 'B' schedule ?
Issue No.5: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to
cancellation of sale deed dated 16-2-2001 in favour of D-17 and D-18 executed by D-2, D-3, D-13 and D-14 for Rs.1,35,000/- in respect of item No.5 of plaint 'B' schedule?
Issue No.6: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to
cancellation of lease deed dt. 10-9-1999 in favour of D-19 executed by the then president of D-4 society for Rs.1,50,000/- in respect of item No. 6 of plaint 'B' schedule?
62.To answer the above issues No.2 to 6, this
Court invoked section 31 (1) of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Sec. 31(1) When cancellation may be ordered.— (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
63.When the law is very clear, the Court need not search for the interpretation. Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 clearly provides: Who can seek the cancellation of the documents, under what circumstances the cancellation of documents can be sought?
64.The plaintiff No.1 to 9 are parties not to the documents. How can they seek cancellation of documents if they are not parties to the documents? More over P.W.1 clearly admitted in the plaint, chief-affidavit and in evidence that the suit schedule properties were purchased by the 1st defendant
Mission and the documents are in the possession of D.1 Mission.
65.In 2006 (6) ALD 523 (FB) at para No.26, it was held that:
OS.4/2001 - 153 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Cancellation of deed can be sought in a Court, only
by a person who executed the document and who perceives that it is void or voidable – a person not a
party to document can maintain a suit for
declaration.
66.In 2008 (2) ALD 669, it is held that
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 31 – Declaration of a written instrument as void – Suit for, can be filed only by a person against whom instrument is void or voidable.
67.At this juncture, Court refreshed its memory to
Order 7 Rule 11 (a) for cause of action. Even prior to the documents executed by the 1st defendant Mission, the properties of D.1 Mission were sold away. The cause of action starts 15 years prior to the institution of suit. What the plaintiffs No.2 to 9 were doing all these 15 years is one more question? So, as per
Sec.31(1) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and as per the above judgments, the plaintiffs are not entitled to institute a suit for cancellation of documents executed by the 1st defendant Mission.
Even the plaintiffs cannot invoke section 53 of Transfer of
Property Act, 1882. The plaintiffs have no locus standi to seek for cancellation of documents which are mentioned in issue No.2 to 6. As such, the Issues No.2 to 6 are answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
68.Now the 7th Issue framed by this Court is:
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to perpetual injunction as prayed for?
OS.4/2001 - 154 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
69.At this juncture, this Court recollected and remembered section 38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Section 38 Perpetual injunction when granted.— (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this Chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.
(2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the rules and provisions contained in
Chapter II.
(3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff‘s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:—
(a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
(b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion;
(c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief;
(d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
70.Under what sub-section of section 38, the plaintiffs seeking perpetual injunction is not clear. Section 38(1) provides perpetual injunction can be granted to the plaintiffs to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.
71.The word ―obligation‖ is defined under section 2(a) of Specific Relief Act, 1963, which means ―obligation‖ includes every duty enforceable by law. What is the duty which is enforceable by law is binding on the defendants to perform their duty. As per no laws of the land, the duty is cast upon the
OS.4/2001 - 155 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 defendants to perform their duty as the discussion in supra of its judgment.
72.Section 38(2) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 is not applicable as it provides contract between the parties. There is no contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Section 38(3) provides:
(3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff‘s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction.
What is the right of the plaintiffs? From where, from whom the plaintiffs acquired right? There is no enjoyment of the property by the plaintiffs as per the plaint itself. As per the plaint, para
No.25(a), it is prayed to declare the right of the 1st plaintiff
Church and plaintiffs No.2 to 8 and pastor in office and Members of the Deacon Board, to use, manage and administer the plaint ‗A‘ and ‗B‘ schedule properties, which means the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property and enjoyment of the property.
The plaintiffs are seeking to declare to use, manage and administer the plaint ‗A‘ and ‗B‘ schedule properties. It is an admission made by the plaintiffs. It is an admission under section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. An admitted fact need not be proved under section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Of course, this Court admitted that the admissions are not conclusive proof, but they may operate as estoppels under section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Under section 38, plaintiffs have to prove that they are in possession of the property. On the other hand the plaintiffs pray under para 25(a) to declare their right to use, manage and administer the plaint ‗A‘ and ‗B‘ schedule properties, which means the plaintiffs are
OS.4/2001 - 156 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 not in possession of the property. Hence, they are not enjoying the property. How can a perpetual injunction is sought by the plaintiffs, if the prayer does not come under any category of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963. The P.W.1 himself admitted in his cross-examination done on 6.8.2004 that he does not know the nature of the properties at Hindupur and he knows the location of the properties and further admitted that there are no documents in possession of the plaintiff No.1 Church with regard to the properties of Hindupur. So, as per the evidence of P.W.1, if he himself does not know the nature of the properties, how the plaintiffs can say that they are in possession of the properties.
The plaintiffs utterly failed in proving the fact that they are in possession of the property. As such the perpetual injunction cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence Issue No.7 is answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
73.Issue No.8: Whether the second plaintiff
K.Shalim Das was recognized as pastor-cum-president of
1 st plaintiff Church by first defendant?
74.This issue is not a matter in issue. As such not answered and it is jettisoned. Whether particular person may be a pastor or may not be a pastor of particular Church and whether the D.1 Mission admitted that fact or not, because
Pastor is a honourary post and he receives the salary. Deciding the Issue No.8 does not confer any right on plaintiffs or defendants. As such it is jettisoned.
OS.4/2001 - 157 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
75.Now let us decide issue No.9:
Whether plaintiffs 2 to 8 have got right to sue as averred in paras 3 and 4 of written statements of
D-4 to D-12 ?
76.In the 4th para of the plaint, it is claimed that the 1st plaintiff is the permanent body. One would not know un- explained further what is meant by this gory expression a permanent body that too when this is so-called body is claimed to be dealing with evangelization. Whether the chief theory is always moral nature of the earthly beings. This Court do not find any word permanent body in Ex.A.1. The plaintiffs No.2 to 8 described themselves in the plaintiff as Deacon Board Members said to have been elected as per Ex.A.1. In the cross- examination of P.W.1, in page No.11, 7th line from the top, it reveals that:
It is true to suggest that we, the plaintiffs were not the
Deacon Board Members of the Church headed by Yesu
Rathnam.
77.As per the evidence of P.W.1, the plaintiffs were not
Deacon Board Members. It is difficult for this Court to treat this alleged permanent body whether as a Society? Or a firm? Or a
Corporation? Or as a Company? Or as an association of persons? Hence, issue No.9 is answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants due to vagueness of the expression ‗permanent body‘.
OS.4/2001 - 158 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
78.Before answering Issue No.10, the Court felt that it is wise to answer this issue in the last part of its judgment.
79.Now issue No.11:
Whether the alleged agreement of compromise deed dated 8.8.1998 is true, valid and binding on the parties, or what it its effect on the rights of the parties, if any?
80.The alleged compromise deed dated 8.8.1998 is valid between the 1st defendant Mission and D.4. This compromise deed is executed by both parties to settle the dispute once for all. The 1st defendant Mission is registered under Companies Act and it is at liberty to enter into any agreement/compromise with any party. The plaintiffs No.1 to 8 have no locus standi to question the compromise deed between D.1 and D.4. It is a valid document and it can be enforceable by law. The P.W.1 categorically admitted in the cross-examination that there is no correspondence between D.1 and their 7 plaintiffs prior to or subsequent to filing of the suit. Then, from where these 8 plaintiffs acquired locus standi to file the suit is a question? The 1st defendant is an independent company and as such its compromise with some other cannot be questioned. In the plaint, para No.25 (e), the prayer is to grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon‘ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. The plaintiffs have no personal interest in the matter. As such no relief can be granted to the plaintiffs 1 to 9. The compromise deed executed on 8.8.1998 cannot be questioned by any citizen in the cosmos. Article III
Section 4, the last sentence provides that all other premises
OS.4/2001 - 159 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
purchased , erected or otherwise acquired for any Mission
purpose whatever, whether with private or Mission funds
shall become the property of the Mission. What more the plaintiffs required, this sentence in Article III Section 4 is sufficient to answer all the issues. As such Issue No.11 is answered against the plaintiffs and it is answered in favour of the defendants.
81.Now let us answer the issue No.12:
Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the sales in favour of D-16 to D-19 alone, having acquiesced earlier alienation's, as averred in para 35 of the written statement of
D-4 to D-12 ?
82.To answer the above issue, this Court perused examination-in-chief and cross-examination of P.W.1, more especially page No.7, in which the P.W.1 stated that he does not know whether Survey No.102 was sold away by the 1st defendant. The witness further stated in cross-examination in page No.2 done on 6.8.2004 that he does not know the nature of the property at Hindupur. He knows only location of the properties. There are no documents in the possession of the plaintiff No.1 Church regarding the properties at Hindupur. This evidence clearly shows that the witness is an ordinary citizen in
Hindupur, he only knows the locality of the Church. He does not know the nature of the property and he does not know what properties are sold away in what Survey Number. Then the plaintiffs are stopped from questioning the sales in favour of
D.16 to D.39 alone. There may be some other sales that took
OS.4/2001 - 160 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 place, which are answered from Issue No.2 to 6. The word estopped is an ancient English word, which originally bore precisely, the same signification as equally ancient English word stopped, where it is merely a variant. Since the plaintiffs not questioned the previous transactions. Some other transactions, they stopped from questioning the transactions in favour of D.16 to D.19. Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides:
Estoppel.- When one person has, by his declaration, act
or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another
person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon
such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be
allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and
such person or his representative, to deny the truth of
that thing.
As such this issue No.12 is answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
83.Issue No.13:
Whether the first plaintiff is a permanent Body with the elected Deacon Board members for every two years in accordance with rules framed by first defendant, or, whether it is only a Temporary Body for the purpose of maintenance of Local Church, as averred in written statement of D-1 to D-3 and D- 13 and D-14 ?
84.In proving this issue, burden lies on the plaintiffs under section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The section provides whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any
OS.4/2001 - 161 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
85.Ex.A.1 is enacted in the year 1893 as per the
Preamble of the Constitution, Principles and Practice of the
Ceylon & India General Mission.
86.Article IX, section 2(c) provides: The India Council shall have the power to appoint Committees of missionaries or officers of the Mission to confer with the National Government in matters relating to the Government, or to act on Inter-
Missionary Alliances, in accordance with the Constitution,
Principles and Practice – subject to the approval of the Annual
Conference.
87.So, since the Constitution of Ceylon & India General
Mission commenced in 1893, since then who are the Deacon
Board Members and how these plaintiffs succeeded and from whom these plaintiffs succeeded as Deacon Board Members is to be answered by the plaintiffs.
88.The burden lies on them under section 101 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As per the above provisions of the
Constitution, if the plaintiffs No.1 to 8 are Deacon Board
Members/permanent body,--
Did they file any piece of paper to show that they are
appointed or recognized or continuation of their
power by D.1 Mission?
89.Neither the plaintiffs filed any recognized piece of paper by the 1st defendant Mission, nor it is a registered body.
90.Article III Section 4, the last sentence provides that
all other premises purchased , erected or otherwise
OS.4/2001 - 162 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
acquired for any Mission purpose whatever, whether with
private or Mission funds shall become the property of the
Mission. What more the plaintiffs required, this sentence in
Article III Section 4 is sufficient to answer all the issues.
91.Let us evaluate the evidence of P.W.1 in cross- examination in page No.11, 7th line from the top:
“ It is true that, we, the plaintiffs were not
Deacon Board Members of the Church headed by
Yesu Rathnam. There is no correspondence
between D.1 and our 7 plaintiffs prior to or
subsequent to filing of the suit. “
92.P.W.1 himself admitted that the plaintiffs were not the Deacon Board Members of the Church headed by
Yesurathnam. Whereas the plaint continuously stressing that
Rev. Yesu Rathnam was the Pastor and these plaintiffs succeeded they Dr. Rev. Yesu Rathnam.
Then, What is the origin of this body?
When this body is originated?
By whom it is recognized?
is unknown to this Court. As such this Issue No.13 is answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
93.The contest may be irrelevant, but the Court is intended to mention the following observations.
94.It is a suit for declaration of immovable property, permanent injunction, whereas P.W.1 alone examined in this suit. No corroborating witness is examined by the plaintiffs.
OS.4/2001 - 163 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Rule of law may not require corroboration. Rule of
prudence requires it. No Judge will believe without
corroboration. After all we are also humans. They may be right under section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The
Court has to weigh the evidence, not the witness.
95.Issue No.14: Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable?
96.To answer the above issue, the evidence of P.W.1 given in cross-examination in 8th page, it is stated by P.W.1 that ―There is an evidence to say that our Church is the
Director of D.1‖ and in page No.11, 3rd line from the top:
― I cannot say who are the Deacon Board Members at the time of Ex.A.42 (a) and (b).‖
The witness submitted in his cross-examination in 6th page that:
― All the Church properties are common properties of every worshipper of Christian community of
Hindupur‖ and in page No.5 in the beginning of his cross-examination, it is admitted that:
―It is true that all the properties belong to Ceylon &
India General Mission Church at Hindupur. The
Ceylon & India General Mission was originally establish ed at London.‖
The witness further more submitted in the third page, second line from the top that,-- ―Our Congregation is less than 400 members‖.
OS.4/2001 - 164 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
The chief-affidavit of the P.W.1 in para No.15, third line, it provides that:
As there are as many as 64 Councils of the Mission,
whose approval is necessary for disposal of the
property.
97.At this juncture, Court recollected Order 1, Rule 1.
Who may be joined as plaintiffs— All persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where—
(a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and
(b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.
98.As per the evidence in the chief by P.W.1, these 64
Councils are necessary parties. To decide the necessary parties, two tests are there: Firstly, there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of matter involved in the proceedings and Secondly, it should not be possible to pass an effective decree in the absence of such party.
99.First and foremost P.W.1 himself does not know how many Councils are there as he deposed as many as 64
Councils of the Mission. The above expression is vague and more over if there are 64 Councils of the Mission, whose approval is necessary for disposal of the properties, then these 64 Councils are necessary parties for the purpose of suit, as without their concurrence, without their approval, the suit properties are transferred. Then how this suit is maintainable
OS.4/2001 - 165 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017 and it is violation of Order 1, Rule 1 and Order 9, Rule 9 proviso, which provides that nothing in this rule was applied to non- joinder of necessary parties. The present suit is not a representative suit under Order 1, Rule 8. There is a procedure enunciated under Order 1, Rule 8 to institute a representative suit. Then the suit can be dismissed at threshold for non-joinder of necessary parties.
“Our congregation is less than 400 members”
So, all these members are interested parties in the Church properties as per the evidence of P.W.1 himself. Then why not a representative suit under Or.1, R.8? So the suit as framed is not maintainable.
100.In the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is stated that the plaintiffs 2 to 8 have no individual personal rights in any of the Church properties. Then, the injunction cannot be granted under section 41(j) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 when the plaintiffs have no personal interest in the matter, injunction cannot be granted.
Hence this issue No.14 is answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
101.Issue No.10: Whether the reliefs are undervalued and the court-fee paid is insufficient ?
102.On perusal of the plaint, the valuation of the reliefs and Court fee paid thereon is correct. Hence, this issue
No.10 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
OS.4/2001 - 166 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
103.Addl. Issue No.1: Whether the defendants
21 to 32 are bona fide purchasers of the part of the plaint
schedule property ?
104.The bona fide purchaser shall be protected under umbrella of law is a running thread throughout the fabric of enactment, by name, Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
105.As per Article III of the Constitution and Principles and Practice of Ceylon & India General Mission, section 4 provides:
All other premises purchased , erected or otherwise
acquired for any Mission purpose whatever, whether
with private or Mission funds shall become the property of the Mission and there is a compromise deed between the 1st defendant
Mission and D.4 which is valid and binding. As such, the defendants 21 to 32 are bona fidepurchasers for valuable consideration and they are protected under umbrella of law and this Addl. Issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants, more especially the defendants No.21 to 32.
106.This Court concluded the judgment with the following observation:
In our Society, acquiring a power and more power, money and more money, the rest is meaningless.
OS.4/2001 - 167 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
107.Issue No.15 :- To what relief ?
Considering the above provision of law, facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/-, as the suit is of 2001.
Dictated to the Stenographer in part and transcribed by
him and typed to my dictation in part, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25th day of April, 2017.
II Additional District Judge, Hindupur.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined for
For plaintiffs:
PW 1: Y.Prabhakar Sahayam.
For defendants:
DW.1: Paul Santhi Kumar (D.13)
DW.2: Elisha Prabhakar (D.20)
DW.3: Dona Gangadhar (D.17)
DW.4: Dr.T.Nirmala Reddy (D.16)
Exhibits marked for Plaintiffs
Ex.A.1/ -- Original Constitution, principles and practice of D.1 Mission along with Photostat copy.
Ex.A.2/ -- CYCOLNE AND INDIA GENERAL MISSION TELUGU CHURCHES Act, 1995.
Ex.A.3/ 27.8.1977 Certified copy of common judgment in O.S. 320/1973 and O.S. 519/1973 on the file of District Munsif, Hindupur.
OS.4/2001 - 168 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Ex.A.4/ 10.4.1980 Certified copy of common judgment in A.S. No. 228/77 and A.S. No. 230/77 on the file of District Court, Ananthapuramu.
Ex.A.5/ 23.1.1980 Letter addressed to D-4‘s Secretary by D-1-institution.
Ex.A.6/ 28.12.1983 Letter addressed by H.G.W.Mc Cormick of D-1 institution to D.10.
Ex.A.7/ 29-11-1983 Letter addressed by B.E.Tozer, Secretary of D-1 Mission, to D-10.
Ex.A.8/ 17-7-1984 Certified copy of Letter addressed by Tozer, Secretary, Ceylon & India General Mission, Bangalore to the Secretary of plaintiff-institution.
Ex.A.9/ 17-10-1984 Certified copy of Letter by Chairman, Ceylon & India General Mission, Bangalore to the Secretary B. Prakasha Rao, the plaintiff-Church.
Ex.A.10/ 15-5-1998 Letter addressed to the Pastor and Deacons, C&IG Mission Church, Hindupur (Plaintiff-institution) by D-1 Mission.
Ex.A.11/ 29.12.1993 Certified copy of Letter addressed by Secretary A. Selvaraj of D-1 Mission to B. Prakash Rao.
Ex.A.12/ 13.5.1998 Letter sent by A. Selvaraj, Secretary of D-1 Mission to the Plaintiff‘s pastor.
Ex.A.13/ 19.8.1996 Certified copy of Letter addressed by D-1‘s Secretary to Mr.V.Paul Santhi Kumar, Secretary, the 1st plaintiff/Church.
Ex.A.14/ 27.5-1998 Letter copy marked to the Pastor, the 1st plaintiff/Church which was addressed to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hindupur.
Ex.A.15/ 14-1-1998 Letter by the Secretary of D-1 Mission to the Pastor, the 1st plaintiff/church.
Ex.A.16/ 14-1-1998 Letter addressed by the Secretary of D-1 Mission to the Pastor, the 1st plaintiff/church.
Ex.A.17/ -- Certified copy of Letter written by the President and the Secretary of D- 4 Institution to the Plaintiff-Church.
Ex.A.18/ -- Certified copy of Commissioner‘s report in I.A.34/2001 in C.M.A.3/2001 on the file of Senior
Civil Judge, Hindupur.
OS.4/2001 - 169 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Ex.A.19/ 22.3.2000 Registration extract of sale deed in favour of D-16 by D-4-institution and others.
Ex.A.20/ 25.5.2000 Registration extract of sale deed in favour of D-16 by D-4-institution and others.
Ex.A.21/ 16.2.2001 Registration extract of sale deed in favour of D-18 and others, by D4/institution and others.
Ex.A.22/ 16.2.2001 Registration extract of sale deed in favour of D-17 and others, by D4/institution and others.
Ex.A.23/ 10.9.1999 Certified copy of registered lease deed entered into between in favour of D-19, by the 1st plaintiff/church.
Ex.A.24/ 1.12.1896 Certified copy of Registration extract of sale deed executed in favour of the 1st plaintiff/Church by Kadirigadu and others.
Ex.A.25/ -- Served plaint copy in O.S.205/90 on the file of District Munsif, Hindupur.
Ex.A.26/ 16.9.2001 Photo copy of Resolution passed by the plaintiff-institution.
Ex.A.27/ 10.8.2001 No objection certificate issued by D.4/institution to the 1st plaintiff/church.
Ex.A.28/ 8-10-1999 Letter addressed by the 1st plaintiff- institution to D-1 Mission.
Ex.A.29/ 3.10.1999 Letter from Secretary of the 1st plaintiff/church to the Pastor, Ceylon & India General Mission, Penukonda.
Ex.A.30/ 10.9.1999 Registration extract of lease deed entered into between D.4/institution and D.19.
Ex.A.31/ 25-6-2000 Photo copy of Resolution passed by the 1st plaintiff-church.
Ex.A.32/ -- Electricity bills.
Ex.A.33/ 4.11.1997 Photo copy of written statement filed by M.Deenakar in OS.No. 4/1997 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Hindupur.
Ex.A.34/ -- Written statement filed in
O.S.205/1990 on the file of Junior
Civil Judge, Hindupur by D-4
institution.
Ex.A.35/ 22.1.1999 Certified copy of decree in
OS.No.205/1990 on the file of Junior
Civil Judge, Hindupur.
OS.4/2001 - 170 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Ex.A.36/ 15.6.1990 Certified copy of Notice issued by D- 1 Mission through its Advocate to D4-institution and other defendants
Ex.A.37/ 22-6-1990 Reply notice issued by P.D. Paran Jyothi and others.
Ex.A.38/ -- Copy of plaint in O.S.122/1984 on the file of District Munsif, Hindupur filed by the D.4.
Ex.A.39/ 12.12.1972 Certified copy of letter issued by the Commissioner/Special Officer, Hindupur Municipality to D1-Mission.
Ex.A.40/ 7.4.1955 Certified copy of Letter from Tahasildar, Hindupur to Rev. Clarrance, T.Bass of ―C&IG Mission church, Hindupur‖
Ex.A.41/ 16.8.1982 Certified copy of Letter addressed by B.E. Tozer, Secretary of D1 Mission to the Commissioner, Hindupur Municipality.
Ex.A.42/ -- Minutes book containing resolution dt.28.8.1977 maintained by the 1st plaintiff/church for the years, 1977.
Ex.A.42A/ -- List of members in Minutes book.
Ex.A.42B/ -- Resolution dt.28.8.1977 in Minutes book.
Ex.A.43/ -- Photograph showing the participation of the defendant No.13 in the spiritual activities of the plaintiffs church
Ex.A.44/ -- Photograph showing the participation of the defendant No.13 in the spiritual activities of the plaintiffs church
Ex.A.45/ -- Photograph showing the participation of the defendant No.13 in the spiritual activities of the plaintiffs church
Ex.A.46/ -- Photograph showing the participation of the defendant No.13 in the spiritual activities of the plaintiffs church
Ex.A.47/ -- Minutes Book.
Ex.A.47A/ -- Relevant entry at pages 16 to 19.
Ex.A.47B/ -- Resolution at page No.70 and 71.
Ex.A.48/ 4.4.1996 Communication to the D.1 intimating the newly elected deacon board members for the plaintiff church for 1996-98.
OS.4/2001 - 171 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Ex.A.49/ 26-6-1995 Carbon copy of Letter addressed by the plaintiff to the then Pastor Rev. B.Yesurathnam.
Ex.A.50/ 7-3-1994 Copy of the resolution authorizing the Secretary and Treasurer to deposit the funds of the first plaintiff with the bank.
Ex.A.51/ 21-4-1998 Minutes and Resolution at Page No.95 in Ex.A.47 Minutes book.
Ex.A.52/ 31.1.2001 Letter from D.1 to Secretary, Deacon and Members of Ceylon & India General Mission Church, Hindupur.
Exhibits marked for Defendants
Ex.B.1/ 8.8.1998 Certified copy of deed of compromise/ agreement.
Ex.B.2/ 30.1.2001 Building license granted by the Municipality, Hindupur for constructing new Church building.
Ex.B.3/ -- Approved plan issued by Hindupur Municipality.
Ex.B.4/ 15.1.2000 Way bill for transporting Cement.
Ex.B.5/ 15.1.2000 Voucher for paying Lorry hire.
Ex.B.6/ 4.2.2000 Bill for purchase of cement.
Ex.B.7/ 27.3.2000 Bill for purchase of cement.
Ex.B.8/ 31.3.2000 Way Bill.
Ex.B.9/ 31.3.2000 Lorry hire letter.
Ex.B.10/ 1.4.2000 Lorry hire letter.
Ex.B.11/ 1.4.2000 Bill for payment of freight.
Ex.B.12/ 27.6.2000 Bill for purchase of cement.
Ex.B.13/ 5.7.2000 Bill for purchase of cement.
Ex.B.14/ 17.7.2000 Bill for purchase of cement.
Ex.B.15/ 20.7.2000 Bill for purchase of cement.
Ex.B.16/ 29.9.2000 Bill for purchase of cement.
Ex.B.17/ 1.10.2000 Bill for purchase of cement.
Ex.B.18/ 20.8.2001 Electricity Receipts with two bills.
Ex.B.19/ 26.3.1999 Property tax receipts 5 in number.
Ex.B.20/ -- Certified copy of Petition and affidavit and orders in I.A. 459/2000 in
OS.118/2000 on the file of Junior Civil
Judge Court, Hindupur.
Ex.B.21/ -- Certified copy of Counter in I.A. 459/2000 in OS.118/2000 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Hindupur.
OS.4/2001 - 172 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Ex.B.22/ -- Certified copy of Plaint in
OS.118/2000 on the file of Junior Civil
Judge Court, Hindupur.
Ex.B.23/ 19.2.2001 Certified copy of orders in I.A. 459/2000 in OS.118/2000 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Hindupur.
Ex.B.24/ 31.7.2001 CC of Orders in C.M.A. 3/2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur.
Ex.B.25/ 11.8.1964 Notarized copy of the Minutes book confirming the appointment of Rev. B.Yesu Rathnam as pastor.
Ex.B.26/ 7.7.1999 Notarized Copy of the Minutes of the General Body of D.4.
Ex.B.27/ 26.6.1999 Notarized Copy of the Minutes of the Deacon Board.
Ex.B.28/ 18.12.1999 Bill for purchase of iron.
Ex.B.29/ 21.3.2000 Bill for purchase of iron.
Ex.B.30/ 21.3.2000 Freight bill for transporting of iron.
Ex.B.31/ 25.4.2000 Bill for purchase of iron.
Ex.B.32/ 8.5.2000 Bill for purchase of iron.
Ex.B.33/ 2.6.2000 Invoice for delivery of iron.
Ex.B.34/ 2.6.2000 Invoice for delivery of iron.
Ex.B.35/ 2.6.2000 9 (Nine) bills for purchase and delivery of iron.
Ex.B.36/ -- Printed by-laws of the defendant No.4.
Ex.B.37/ 30.5.2000 Receipt issued by Rastriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., Hyderabad.
Ex.B.38/ 16.11.1999 Receipt issued by Q.A. Enterprises, Hyderabad.
Ex.B.39/ 3.12.2001 Encumbrance Certificate for Survey No.100-2.
Ex.B.40/ 16.2.2001 Registered sale deed for Rs.1,40,000/- executed by D.1/Church in favour of the defendants No.17 and 18.
Ex.B.41/ 16.2.2001 Registered sale deed for Rs.1,35,000/- executed by D.1/Church in favour of the defendants No.17 and 18.
Ex.B.42/ 16.2.2001 Registered sale deed for Rs.60,000/- executed by D.1/Church in favour of the defendants No.17 and 18.
OS.4/2001 - 173 -II Addl. D.J., Hdp.
delivered on 25-4-2017
Ex.B.43/ 8.11.1978 Registration extract of General Power of Attorney executed by D.1/Church in favour of its Chairman B.E.Tozer.
II A.D.J.