1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : REPALLE
Present: Sri K.Chakradhara Srinivas, M.A., B.L.,
Principal Junior Civil Judge: Repalle.
Monday, the 23rd day of April, 2018
O.S.No.111/2012
Between:
Mount Olives Prayers House, Repalle, Rep. By its Pastor, Karra Prasad....Plaintif -And-
1. Motupalli Ramesh.
2. Yallamati Yesuratnam.
3. Gorikapudi Anandarao.
4. K.M.Samson 4th defendant added as per orders in
IA No.477/2016....Defendants
This suit is coming before me on 28-3-2018 for hearing in the presence of Sri D.Sambasivarao, advocate for plaintiff and of Sri M.V.Subbarao, advocate for defendants 1 to 3 and of Sri K.Srinivasarao, advocate for 4th defendant and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents not to interfere with plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff church in any way and to award costs of this suit.
2.The plaint averments in brief are as follows:
The plaintiff is Mount Olives Prayer House situated in Gummadivari street, 13th ward, Repalle, Guntur District. The said prayer house was under the control of The Indigenous Churches in India Trust, Hebron, Golconda Cross
Road, Hyderabad, a registered Society and the appointments of the pastors and maintenance of the prayer house are under the control and guidelines of the said Society. That the plaintiff prayer house is one of the Church under the control of The Indigenous Churches in India Trust, Hyderabad. That the said
Trust is appointed the plaintiff as a pastor on 16-5-2005 in place of one Bro.
Anandarao and the plaintiff is obtained charge from the Anandarao and is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff prayer house. That defendants 1 to 4 are the believers and used to attend the plaintiff church for prayer and they 2 have bore grudge against the plaintiff and previously and in the year 2011 they highhandedly took away the donation box and now the defendants wants to transfer the plaintiff from the plaintiff church to another place and wants to appoint their men in his place and the Trust failed to accept the request and demand of the defendants. Accordingly the defendants 1 to 4 along with their henchmen and ladies obstructing the plaintiff in his prayer work highhandedly without conducting the prayer in the plaintiff church premises.
That the defendants also put dead line if the plaintiff not hand over the church to them on or before 29-7-2012 they will highhandedly took the same and demolish the same and convert the same as per their wish and appoint another person in place of plaintiff. That the plaintiff no other go lodged a complaint
before the Superintendent of Police, Guntur on 16-7-2012 against the
defendants and the Superintendent of Police, Guntur refer the matter to the SI of Police, Repalle for taking action according to law. That the SI of Police,
Repalle so far not taken any action, and advised him to approach civil court and obtain injunction orders against the defendants as the case comes under the civil nature. That the plaintiff is a pastor and alone residing in the church premises and the defendants are highly influenced persons and permanent residents of Repalle and also having muscle power and also active support of rowdy elements and the plaintiff is not in position to protect the plaintiff church property without order of injunction and also conduct prayer without order of injunction from the court. The plaintiff got good case and balance of convenience in his favour and prayed for permanent injunction.
3.The 1st defendant filed his written statement and submitted that this suit is not maintainable either on fact or at law. The averments made in the suit are not true and correct and they are concocted for the purpose of this suit.
The averments made in the suit that the defendants in the suit as such as well authorized to file this written statement on behalf of the entire congregation. It is submitted that the church of Mount Olives (Oleevalakonda) was established in the year 1969, which is affiliated to the Hebron (Church under registered
Society), Hyderabad. The Hebron church has got number of affiliated churches 3 both in India and as such as in Abroad. The appointments of the preachers in the affiliated churches by the committee constituted executive members of the society and the other elders of the trust. The basic qualification for the appointment of a preacher (Gods servant) in the affiliated churches is that one should have belief and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and also should have good character. The activities of the preacher is to preach the Gospel to the congregation by brining the unknown to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is also required that the preacher should be a model of the church. It is submitted that various averments and allegations in the suit against the defendants are all false, fabricated and baseless. The allegations are invented for the purpose of the suit and also for obtaining the interim injunction in getting by misleading this court. The plaintiff is also trying to establish as if he is the proprietor/owner of the church. In this regard, this defendant would like to submit the allegations are totally denied. It is submitted that the present number of congregation is about 100 at present. Earlier the number of the congregation was about 200, now the same is reduced to 100 due to the attitude and the illegal activities of the plaintiff. The defendants have been attending the church since their childhood. Their self and the other congregation members are under taken the activities of the church by constituted a committee for conducting the various programs schedule by the head office and also by following the instructions given by the trust and committee members of the Hebron. The activities taken up by the church should be approved and accepted by the congregation. The role of the plaintiff is only to implement and execute the activities according to the congregation approval. The plaintiff has to preach the “Word of God” by saving the congregation from the evil spirits. In the existing case, the preacher that is the plaintiff herein has become ‘evil and Satan’ who has no place to continue as a preacher. Some of the illegal activities of the suit as follows:
a) The plaintiff is collecting contributions from the others as if he is the authorized for construction of the new church building and laid foundation, on that all the congregation members raised their objection then 4 the plaintiff stop the construction.
b) Without permission of the congregation the plaintiff fell down the coconut and other trees in the church premises and sold out for his personal use.
c) The plaintiff and his son are just like behaving like street rowdy threatening all the congregation members, who have raised their voice against the illegal activities of the plaintiff.
d) The plaintif visited the women members houses at odd timings and sexually harassed them. If they refused, the plaintiff disturbed their families.
e) The plaintiff is trying to grab the church site that’s why he is getting the certified copies of church documents.
This defendant humbly submits that the plaintiff has to move according to the will and wish of the congregation, but not according to his wish and fancies, though the disciplinary activities is the trust, it is also the duty of the congregation to take care of the church in all aspects. It is true that the representation and also complaint has been open to the trust board at
Hyderabad for removal and transfer of the plaintif, which is under
active consideration. Meanwhile the plaintiff herein has rowdy, the entire church premises and disturbed entire congregation. The plaintif has no right to continue as a preacher/pastor. If the plaintiff is continue as a preacher/pastor, the church will become a devils den. The purpose of establishing the church would lost its purpose. The decency and decorum of the church has to be saved. The plaintiff has lost his faith in God. The entire congregation is unwilling to here the word of God through the plaintiff herein.
It is submitted that this court while granting the interim injunction has to look into the character of the plaintiff and also the purpose of seeking injunction.
The Hon’ble Court said that “granting of injunction in place of worship and also with regard to the servant of God or to be throughly examine”. The public should not suffer because of the injunction granted by the courts. The case of the plaintiff herein is that to protect himself and also continue his illegal activities. The plaintiff filed a false case before this court. Hence the interim 5 injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff has to be vacated, failing which the entire congregation would suffer irreparable loss and injury. The prima facie case and balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff, whereas the prima facie case and balance of convenience is in favour of the defendants.
There are absolutely no merits in this suit. Therefore, this defendant prayed to dismiss this suit with costs.
4.The defendants 2 and 3 filed an adopting memo and submitted that the defendants 2 and 3 are adopting the written statement of the 1st defendant.
4.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1.Whether the plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction ?
2. Whether the plaintif is having any locus standi to file this suit against the defendants ?
3. Whether this court is having jurisdiction to entertain this suit ?
4. Whether the plaintif is in the exclusive legal possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing the suit or not ?
5. To what relief ?
5. On behalf of plaintiff, P.W.1 to 4 are examined and got marked Exs.A1 to
A.5. On behalf of defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 are examined and got marked
Ex.B.1.
6.Heard arguments from both sides.
7.ISSUES 1 TO 4:
1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction ?
2. Whether the plaintif is having any locus standi to file this suit against the defendants ?
3. Whether this court is having jurisdiction to entertain this suit ?
4. Whether the plaintif is in the exclusive legal possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing the suit or not ?
Issues 1 to 4 are inter-related, discussed together for better appreciation.
8.The plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief-examination affidavit and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 on his 6 behalf. Ex.A.1 is the appointment order dt.16-5-2005 of the plaintiff. Ex.A.2 is the photostat of the Indigenous Churches in India Trust dt.24-3-2004. Ex.A.3 is the office copy dt.16-7-2012 of the complaint submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur. Ex.A.4 is the document dt.27-5-1969 of plaint schedule property executed by Gamidi Nagaratnamma in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A.5 is the property tax receipts, electricity bills and phone bill (originals) of the plaint schedule property. In the cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that he is working as a Paster from 2005 at Repalle in Mount Olivalakonda Prayer House.
P.W.1 admitted that he was appointed as a Church Paster by the Society of
Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India. Previously he worked as a Church
Paster at Peddivaripalem village of Pedanandhipadu Mandal, Guntur District.
The Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India is having so many
Churches under their control through out in India, including Mount
Olivalakonda Prayer House at Repalle is also under the above Indigenous
Church and its properties also under the control of above Society. P.W.1 admitted that he got filed this suit. P.W.1 admitted that he mentioned in his
Chief Examination Affidavit that the Defendants 1 to 3 are as believers in God.
P.W.1 admitted that he filed a police complaint against defendants 1 to 3 at
Repalle Police Station. P.W.1 denied that he filed this case as per the advise of
Repalle Police as his complaint is relating to civil nature. P.W.1 admitted that he had not obtained any permission from, his Employer i.e The Society of
Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India. P.W.1 deposed that he studied up to
VII class. P.W.1 admitted that he undergone as a Paster at Indigenous Churches of India Trust, Hebron, Golconda Cross Road, Hyderabad. P.W.1 admitted that he had not filed his Training Certificate as a Paster before this court. No written duties allotted to him by his Employer. The Witness voluntarily says that in
Sundays they shall perform “Aaradhana”, in Tuesdays he shall perform ‘Prayer’, in Wednesdays “ Ladies meetings’, Thursdays “ Bible studying”, in Fridays “
Visiting to villages for prayers”, in Saturdays also conducting “Prayer
Meetings”. Presently in his Church, there are about 30 believers in God at the time of his appointment in 2005 there are only 15 believers in his Church. P.W.1 7 denied that at the time of his appointment in the 2005 at Repalle in his Church there are 200 believers in his Church. P.W.1 denied that due to his incapability believers are decreased to 30 members. P.W.1 denied that he is taking money from the believers by attending special prayers at the residence of believers.
P.W.1 denied that unwantedly he was interfering in the personal affairs of the believers. P.W.1 denied that the Defendants are obstructing his illegal activities due to which he got filed this false case. P.W.1 denied that he have received transferred letter,dt. 10-8-2014 from his Trust/ his employer. P.W.1 deposed that he had not received his transfer letter, dt. 26-7-2017 from the
Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India.
P.w.1 admitted that there is a criminal case pending before Addl. Junior
Civil Judge Court, Repalle in between himself and the Defendants. P.W.1 denied
that even as per his transfer orders,dt.26-7-2017 and dt.10-8-2014 he was transferred to Hanuman Junction Church, himself willfully not relived from the
Church at Repalle as plaintif was earning more money at Repalle Church and disobeyed the orders of his employer. P.W.1 denied that he is a native of Repalle then only he was not leaving the Repalle Church even he have received transfer orders from his employer. P.W.1 admitted that his native place is Choudayapalem village of Repalle mandal, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. P.W.1 denied that he got filed a false case and obtained injunction orders from this court by representing false facts even as per the orders of the court he shall relieve as per the orders of his Trust even he was not obeyed injunction orders. He obtained injunction orders in IA
No.582/2012 and granted upto he received his transfer orders. P.W.1 denied that by way of filing false suit he continued as a Church Paster even though he received his transfer orders from his employer. P.W.1 denied that he was deposing false evidence in his Chief Examination Affidavit.
9.P.W.2 is Karra Obedu and he deposed in his chief examination affidavit in support of the case of the plaintiff. In the cross examination, P.W.2 deposed that PW1 is his father. He studied upto I.T.I. He was also residing at Church,
Repalle along with PW1. His marriage performed about 7 years back. P.W.2 8 denied that the married children belongs to the Paster shall not be resided in the Churuch along with him as per the rules of the Church. His father transferred to Repalle Church as per the Orders from the Indigenous Churches in India Trust, Hyderabad. P.W.2 admitted that his father posted as Paster to Repalle Church. P.W.2 admitted that there is no post of Sevak in Repalle
Church. P.W.2 denied that his father received transferred orders from Repalle in the year 2014 from the Indigenous Churches in India Trust, Hyderabad. P.W.2 denied that his father not received the transferred orders and abused authorities. P.W.2 admitted that there is a criminal case is pending against him in Repalle court, which was filed by the Defendants. P.W.2 denied that the trees belongs to the church wrongly utilized by him as wood.
P.W.2 denied that the donations received by way of materials like cement, iron and sand are sold away by him and got unlawful gain from that donations.
P.W.2 denied that his father unlawfully continued as Paster in Repalle
church. P.W.2 admitted that during the festivals the Defendants are attending to the Church at Repalle for prayers. P.W.2 denied that last
Sunday the Defendants attended to the Church for prayer. P.W.2 denied that himself and PW1 attending to Nagayalanka Church and without attending to
Repalle Church. P.W.2 denied that himself and PW1 are working at Repalle
Church for taking gifts from the public. P.W.2 denied that he is deposing false evidence to help PW1.
10.P.W.3 is Neela Annamma deposed in her chief examination affidavit in support of the case of the plaintiff. In the cross examination, P.W.3 deposed that she studied up to 10th class. Her husband died about 8 years back. She is not providing any financial aid to the Plaintiff. She knows that some of the
Defendants who caused inconvenience to the Plaintif. This case is filed by the Plaintiff as some of the persons caused disturbance to him as he filed this case. She is attending the Plaintiff’s church for the last 16 years. Plaintiff came to this church on the transfer from Abron Church. P.W.3 denied that in the year 2014, 2015 and 2017 even transferred from this Church, the Plaintiff not leaving Mount Olivers Prayer House, Repalle. P.W.3 denied that one 9
Aron, Father was appointed as Pastor to this Mount Olivers Prayer
House, Repalle. P.W.3 denied that the Plaintiff misusing the gifts which are given to Mount Olivers Prayer House, Repalle. P.W.3 denied that due to the above said reasons the Head Quarter transferred the Plaintiff to another
Church. P.W.3 denied that the Plaintiff was not relived as a paster from Mount
Olivers Prayer House, Repalle by showing this civil suit. P.W.3 denied that she have money transactions with the Plaintiff due to which she was deposing false.
11.P.W.4 is Akurathi Padmavathi and she deposed in her chief examination affidavit in support of the case of the plaintiff. In the cross examination, P.W.4 deposed that she studied up to 5th class. She is residing at Nagayalanka since long time. P.W.4 admitted that she went to Church, Challapalli in two
occasions. P.W.4 denied that she was disputed with the Pastor,
Challapalli Church. She never saw this Plaintif at Nagayalanka
Church. She does not know the number of the Defendants in this suit.
This suit is filed in the year 2012. She is attending the Mount Olivers Prayer
House, Repalle from last 6 years. She does not know the Defendants in this suit. P.W.4 admitted that the Defendants are also attending Mount
Olivers Prayer House, Repalle. P.W.4 denied that the Plaintiff sold away the take-trees and neem-trees wood for his own with permission of head quarters.
P.W.4 denied that the Plaintiff dividing the believers into two groups and causing disputes in between them. P.W.4 denied that the Plaintiff misused from the believers the offers of Mount Olivers Prayer House, Repalle for his personal enjoyment. P.W.4 denied that the Defendants are intimated to the Abron
Church, Head Office against the illegal activities of this Plaintiff. P.W.4 denied that Plaintiff got filed for causing inconvenience to the Defendants. P.W.4 denied that by showing this civil suit even transferred the Plaintiff not relieving from this Mount Olivers Prayer House, Repalle.
12.The 1st defendant is examined as D.W.1 and he reiterated the contents of the written statement in his chief examination affidavit. In the cross examination, D.W.1 deposed that Plaintiff Church is under Indigenous Churches 10 in India. D.W.1 admitted that the Plaintif is appointed as a Pastor of the Church at Repalle. He does not know whether two parties are approached to the High Court. D.W.1 admitted that he heard that the dispute pending before the High Court in relating to Central Office powers. D.W.1 denied that from the year 2006 onwards Pastors are not appointed by the
Head Office. D.W.1 admitted that due to no transfers as the cases are
pending before the High Court, the old Pastors are continued in the
same places. D.W.1 denied that claiming injunction is rightful remedy claimed by the Plaintiffs. D.W.1 admitted that Plaintiff is not the owner of the Plaintiff
Church at Repalle. D.W.1 denied that Plaintif is the authorizing person to conduct prayers at Repalle Church. D.W.1 denied that Plaintiff is the proper person for the issues in relating to the Repalle Church to file this suit.
D.W.1 denied that Plaintiff never mislead and obtained temporary injunction orders. D.W.1 denied that even injunction order granted by the court, the
Defendants and himself caused injuries to the Plaintif and also
obstructed his duties. D.W.1 admitted that police registered criminal cases against him and the Plaintiff, which are pending before the Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,
Repalle. D.W.1 denied that the Plaintiff never obstructed when himself attended for prayer. D.W.1 denied that himself demanded the Plaintif to go away from the Church. He have not filed any C.M.A in relating to the injunction granted by this court. D.W.1 denied that the transfer letter of the Plaintiff was created by himself and other Defendants and it is not issued by the Central
Office. D.W.1 denied that this court is not having jurisdiction. D.W.1 denied
that Plaintif never obstructed when Defendant No.2 appeared for
prayers to the Plaintif church. D.W.1 denied that the transfer letters are created by the Defendants with forged signatures. D.W.1 denied that he have no connection with the transfer letters. D.W.1 admitted that he never posted as a Pastor through the letters, dt.26-7-2017. D.W.1 denied that for taking away gifts presented by the believers as outsiders are taking away gifts. D.W.1 denied that himself and Defendants are causing inconvenience to the Plaintiff for taking away gifts presented by the believers. D.W.1 denied that he is 11 deposing false evidence.
13.The 2nd defendant Yellapati Yesuratnam is examined as D.W.2 and he reiterated the contents of the written statement, in his chief examination affidavit. In the cross examination, D.W.2 deposed that Plaintiff Church is under
Indigenous Churches in India. D.W.2 admitted that the Plaintif is appointed as a Pastor of the Church at Repalle. He does not know whether two parties are approached to the High Court. D.W.2 admitted that he heard that the dispute pending before the High Court in relating to Central
Office powers. D.W.2 denied that from the year 2006 onwards Pastors are not appointed by the Head Office. D.W.2 admitted that due to no transfers as
the cases are pending before the High Court, the old Pastors are
continued in the same places. D.W.2 denied that claiming injunction is rightful remedy claimed by the Plaintiffs. D.W.2 admitted that Plaintiff is not the owner of the Plaintiff Church at Repalle. D.W.2 denied that Plaintif is the authorizing person to conduct prayers at Repalle Church. D.W.2 denied that Plaintiff is the proper person for the issues in relating to the Repalle Church to file this suit. D.W.2 denied that Plaintiff never mislead and obtained temporary injunction orders. D.W.2 denied that even injunction order granted by the court, the Defendants and himself caused injuries to the Plaintiff and also obstructed his duties. D.W.2 admitted that police registered criminal
cases against him and the Plaintif, which are pending before the
Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, Repalle. D.W.2 denied that the Plaintiff never obstructed when himself attended for prayer. D.W.2 denied that himself demanded the
Plaintiff to go away from the Church. D.W.2 admitted that they have not filed any C.M.A in relating to the injunction granted by this court.
D.W.2 denied that the transfer letter of the Plaintiff was created by himself and other Defendants and it is not issued by the Central Office. D.W.2 denied that this court is not having jurisdiction. D.W.2 denied that Plaintiff never obstructed when Defendant No.2 appeared for prayers to the Plaintiff church.
D.W.2 denied that the transfer letters are created by the Defendants with forged signatures. D.W.2 denied that he have no connection with the transfer 12 letters. D.W.2 admitted that he never posted as a Pastor through the letters, dt.26-7-2017. D.W.2 denied that for taking away gifts presented by the believers as outsiders are taking away gifts. D.W.2 denied that himself and
Defendants are causing inconvenience to the Plaintiff for taking away gifts presented by the believers. D.W.2 denied that he is deposing false evidence.
14.D.W.3 is Br. T.Aaron and he deposed in his chief examination affidavit in support of the case of the defendants. In the cross examination, D.W.3 deposed that he is residing at Hyderabad. From last 2 years he is residing at
Repalle. Presently he is working as Pastor at Repalle in Olivalakonda Prayer
House. D.W.3 deposed that he was running a Church by the side of
PW1 Church as PW1 not vacated his church. He is running a Olivalakonda
Prayer House in the house of Yesuratnam. All the defendants are members in his church. They are attending to his church for prayer. He was working as a
Pastor under society of Indigenous Churches in India. D.W.3 admitted that his society registered as 46/2014. D.W.3 admitted that he received appointment order as a pastor on 26-7-2017. D.W.3 admitted that he had not filed his appointment order in this court. D.W.3 admitted that he have not filed the copy of transfer order of PW1 in this court. D.W.3 admitted that he had not filed any documents to show that the church belongs to PW1 is under the control of the above mentioned Society. The head office at Hyderabad is controlled by
Thimothi, Joseph Kuriyan, Veerachari garu. D.W.3 denied that there are some cases are pending before Hon’ble High Court, Hyderabad in relating to the properties of the above Society. D.W.3 admitted that the head office divided into 3 groups and they filed cases for the properties of the above society. D.W.3 denied that even till today not decided who got executive powers in the head office of the above society at Hyderabad. He have not filed any documents in relating to disposal of cases before Hon’ble High Court of A.P and Telangana.
D.W.3 admitted that he have no connection with this present case.
15.D.w.4 is Ragi Veerachary and he deposed in his chief examination affidavit in support of the case of the defendants and got marked Ex.B.1, which is the Transfer Order, dt.26-7-2017, issued by himself along with other three 13
Governing Body Members of the Society Rgd.No.114/1971. In the cross examination, D.W.4 deposed that he is having timber business at Miryalaguda.
He came today from Hyderabad. He is resident of Miryalaguda. D.W.4 admitted that he have not mentioned that he is conducting timber business. He have not filed any documentary proof to establish that he is a Governing Body Member in the Society Registered No. 114/1971. He is ready to file his identity proof to establish his identity particulars. He can able to file his election/voter identity card before this court and the witness shown his voter identity card to this court. He is working as Governing Body Member from 2013 to the Society of
Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India, Rgd. No.114/1971. His society even till today is functioning as per the registration. He have acquaintance with the
Plaintiff from last 3 years. He have no acquaintance with the Plaintiff on the date of his appointment as Pastor. His society is having 15,000 Churches through out in India. He know the Plaintiff. D.W.4 denied that his Society not given appointment Orders to this Plaintiff as a Pastor. He does not know
whether the Plaintif is appointed as a Pastor by the Indigenous
Churches India Trust, Registered No. 46/2004. D.W.4 denied that presently there are cases are pending in between two groups before Hon’ble
High Court with regarding to the Society properties. D.W.4 denied that his evidence is not valid and he got filed false document of Ex.B1. D.W.4 denied that he is deposing false evidence.
16.On considering entire evidence, that the plaintiff is working as pastor in the plaintiff church from 16-5-2005 to till date. D.W.3, who was running a church by the side of plaintiff church in the house of D.W.2. Both the parties are disputing in relating to benefits/gifts from the believers. On considering the both sides evidence that the plaintiff is working as pastor from 16-5-2005 to till date. Both the groups plaintiffs and defendants are disputed each other, they got filed criminal cases before Addl. Junior Civil Judge court, Repalle, both the parties approached to the Repalle police. Plaintiff obtained a temporary injunction till disposal of this suit and plaintiff is continued to work as a pastor in the plaintiff church. As per the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff is appointed as 14 pastor from 16-5-2005 and he has been continuing as a pastor and in possession of the plaintiff church as admitted by both the parties as well as which is admitted by D.Ws.1 to 4. On considering the evidence of plaintiff, the defendants being congregation members bore grudge against this plaintiff and in the year 2011, they highhandedly took away the donation box and further they wants to transfer him from the plaintiff church to some other place and wants to appoint D.W.3/their men in his place. But the said request is not accepted by the society. Thereafter the defendants obstructing the plaintiff highhandedly from conducting prayer in the plaintiff church and they are trying to hand over the plaintiff church. Then the plaintiff reported to the police, but they advised him to approach the civil court. On considering the case of the defendants that the plaintiff is doing illegal activities and the congregation is reduced to 30 members. The said pastor karra Prasad has become evil and satan, who has no place to continue as a preacher. Though the disciplinary authority is the trust, but it is also have duty of the congregation to take care of the church in all aspects. They further contended that the representation and complaint for removal and transfer of the plaintiff is under active consideration of the trust board at Hyderabad. On considering the rival contentions and upon perusal of entire evidence, it is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff prayer house/church is under the control of Indigenous Churches in India Trust,
Hebron, Hyderabad a registered society and the appointment of the pastor and the maintenance of the prayer houses is under the control and guidelines of the said society. It is also an undisputed admitted fact that the Karra
Prasad/plaintiff is appointed as pastor for the plaintiff prayer house on 16-5- 2005 and he is continuing as a pastor of the plaintiff prayer house, and in possession of the same by the date of filing of this suit. As per the evidence of
D.W.3, that the defendants are members of the D.W.3 prayer house maintained by the side of the plaintiff prayer house. As admittedly, defendants also permitted to attend for prayers in the plaintiff church. There is no evidence that the plaintiff is doing illegal activities in his prayer house against women, etc.
None of the believer/any women not stated before this court about the illegal 15 activities conducted by the plaintiff against any woman believer. Except defendants, none of the believers deposed any illegal activities conducted by the plaintiff. The defendants have no right to stop the plaintiff as a pastor to the plaintiff prayer house without due process of law. Defendants have no right to stop the plaintiff for working as pastor in the plaintiff church as he was appointed as a pastor on 16-5-2005. If he was transferred, the action shall be taken by the society/trust through their procedure, not by the defendants.
However the defendants themselves admitted that the appointment, removal and transfer of pastors from one place to another place is under the control of
Hebron (church under registered society) Hyderabad.
17.On considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, they stated that the plaintiff is working as a pastor from 16-5-2005 to till date in Mount Olives Prayer House situated in Gummadivari street, 13th ward, Repalle, Guntur District. The said prayer house was under the control of The Indigenous Churches in India Trust,
Hebron, Golconda Cross Road, Hyderabad, a registered Society and the
appointments of the pastors and maintenance of the prayer house are
under the control and guidelines of the said Society. That the plaintif
prayer house is one of the Church under the control of The Indigenous
Churches in India Trust, Hyderabad. That the said Trust is appointed the plaintif as a pastor on 16-5-2005 in place of one Bro. Anandarao and the plaintif is obtained charge from the Anandarao and is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintif prayer house. That defendants 1 to 4 are the believers and used to attend the plaintiff church for prayer and they have bore grudge against the plaintiff and previously and in the year 2011 they highhandedly took away the donation box and now the defendants wants to transfer the plaintiff from the plaintiff church to another place and wants to appoint their men in his place and the Trust failed to accept the request and demand of the defendants. Accordingly the defendants 1 to 4 along with their henchmen and ladies obstructing the plaintiff in his prayer work highhandedly without conducting the prayer in the plaintiff church premises. That the defendants also put dead line if the plaintiff 16 not hand over the church to them on or before 29-7-2012 they will highhandedly took the same and demolish the same and convert the same as per their wish and appoint another person in place of plaintiff. That the plaintiff no other go, lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Guntur on 16-7-2012 against the defendants and the Superintendent of Police, Guntur refer the matter to the SI of Police, Repalle for taking action according to law.
That the SI of Police, Repalle not taken any action, and advised him to approach civil court and for obtaining injunction orders against the defendants as the case comes under the civil nature. That the plaintiff is a pastor and alone residing in the church premises and the defendants are highly influenced persons and permanent residents of Repalle and also having muscle power and also active support of rowdy elements and the plaintiff is not in position to protect the plaintiff church property without order of injunction and also conduct prayer without order of injunction from the court. Ex.A.1 is the appointment order dt.16-5-2005 of the plaintiff. On considering Ex.A.1 appointment letter to the plaintiff and possesson of the plaintiff church is established on considering Ex.A.1 and as per the admissions of defendants 1 to
4. Ex.A.2 is the photostat of the Indigenous Churches in India Trust dt.24-3- 2004. Ex.A.3 is the office copy dt.16-7-2012 of the complaint submitted to the
Superintendent of Police, Guntur, which is also established the disputes in between plaintiff and defendants and as per the admissions, both are disputed each other for the church and church properties for which police filed criminal cases before Addl. Junior Civil Judge court, Repalle. Ex.A.4 is the document dt.27-5-1969 of plaint schedule property executed by Gamidi Nagaratnamma.
Ex.A.5 is the property tax receipts, electricity bills and phone bill (originals) of the plaint schedule property. Above all documents are in favour of the plaintiff for establishing his possession over the plaintiff church from 16-5-2005 to till date. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 established that plaintiff got possession over the suit schedule property from 16-5-2005 even the defendants are also admitted the appointment of the plaintiff as pastor on 16-5-2005 to on the date of filing of this suit. Presently defendants are contended that even transfer 17 orders given to plaintiff, he never handing over charge of Repalle church to
D.W.3. That will be decided by the society and employer by taking appropriate action. Defendants shall not permitted to dispossess plaintiff from the plaint church without due process of law from the employer of the plaintiff i.e., from schedule property i.e., from plaintiff church at Repalle without due process of law from the employer of the plaintiff. On considering the above circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled permanent injunction against the defendants.
18.Defendants are produced the only document Ex.B.1, which is the transfer
Order, dt.26-7-2017 as per the version of the plaintiff, Ex.B.1 is a false document at Hyderabad two groups are quarrelling and they got filed the cases
before Hon’ble High court and this defendants are colluded with one group
trying to create false documents for the transfer of this plaintiff as a pastor working in the Repalle church. The plaintiff are claiming permanent injunction in relating to church as a pastor as he was appointed and working as a pastor from 16-5-2005 to till date and he himself developed church at Repalle from 16-5-2005 to till date, but defendants are trying to dispute with the plaintiff trying to dispossess from the plaintiff from the suit schedule property for the gifts given to the development of the church from the devotees. Admittedly defendants never produced any documents in relating to suit schedule property is in their possession. As per the version of D.W.3 that they were maintaining another church by the side of plaintiff church in the house of Yesuratnam (defendant No.2) and the defendants are the members in the church maintained by D.W.3.
On considering entire circumstances, plaintiff is running one church i.e., plaint schedule property at Repalle, defendants are running another church by the side of plaintiff church. On considering entire evidence adduced from the both sides, defendants have no right to remove/dispossess the plaintiff from his job i.e., as a pastor who was working from 16-5-2005 to till date without due process of law from his employer.
18
19.Upon considering the submissions of both the parties and upon perusing the evidence available on record, on considering the documents Exs.A.1 to A.5 and the admissions made by the D.Ws.1 to 4, that the plaintiff got possession over the suit schedule land/church on considering Ex.A.1 appointment letter in favour of the plaintiff got paying electricity and house tax on considering the
Ex.A.5. On considering entire evidence and on considering Exs.A.1 to A.5 that the plaintiff is having possession over the suit schedule property church from 16-5-2005 to till date, the plaintiff are sufficiently established their case in relating to possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants not to interfere with the plaintiff peaceful possession of the plaintiff church until due process of law through his employer. Defendants have no right to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaintiff church as admittedly he was appointed and working as a pastor from 16-5- 2005 to till date.
20.Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the judgment held in
Challa Chinababu and another vs. Kovila China Suryanarayana
(died) per L.Rs. 2008(1) ALT 515, it was held that,
“Permanent injunction can be asked for where a legally
enforceable obligation exists in favour of plaintif in respect
of possession sought to be protected.” In this case also, as per the admissions of the defendants, that the plaintiff was appointed as a pastor from 16-5-2005, defendants shall not permitted to dispossess from his work without due process of law. As admittedly, plaintiff is working as a pastor in the church at Repalle. Defendants are also maintaining another church by the side of the plaintiff church. Plaintiff is working as a pastor. Due to disputes in relating to gifts and money given by the devotees, defendants have no right to dispossess possession of the plaintiff from his job. Employer may take action under due process of law. This defendants have no right to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaintiff church.
19
21.In view of the above discussion, this court has no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff has established his case, plaintiff has established his possession over the suit schedule property, whereas the defendants are failed to establish their right and title and possession over the suit schedule church and the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.
Hence the issues 1 to 4 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.
22.Issue No.5:
To what relief ?
IN THE RESULT, suit is decreed without costs. Permanent injunction is granted. Defendants are restrained not to interfere with the plaintiff peaceful possession of the plaintiff church until due process through the employer of the plaintiff. Accordingly this suit is decreed.
Dictated to steno, typed by him directly on computer system, corrected
and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 23rd day of April, 2018.
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Repalle.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
F or Plaintif :
P.W.1Karra Prasad. P.W.2Karra Obedu. P.W.3Neela Annamma. P.W.4Akurathi Padmavathi.
F or Defendants:
D.W.1Motupalli Ramesh. D.W.2Yellapati Yesuratnam. D.W.3Bro.T.Aaron. D.W.4Ragi Veerachary.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
F or Plaintif :
Ex.A.1 Appointment order dt.16-5-2005 of the plaintiff.
Ex.A.2 Photostat of the Indigenous Churches in India Trust dt.24-3-2004.
Ex.A.3 office copy dt.16-7-2012 of the complaint submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur.
Ex.A.4 Document dt.27-5-1969 of plaint schedule property executed by Gamidi Nagaratnamma in favour of the plaintiff.
Ex.A.5 Property tax receipts, electricity bills and phone bill (originals) of the plaint schedule property.
20
F or defendants:
Ex.B.1Transfer Order, dt.26-7-2017, issued by myself along with other three Governing Body Members of the Society Rgd.No.114/1971.
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Repalle.