OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 1 //
IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAZOLE
Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy,
Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole
Monday, this the 23rd day of March, 2020
OS.No.153/2015 OS.No.153/2015
Between : Indian Pentecostal Church, Antervedipalem, Reptd.by its President, Pachigolla Samuel Finny, S/o.P.L.Paramjyothi, aged 55 years, R/o.D.No.537, Antervedipalem, represented by his General Power of Attorney Holders:
1.Dondapati Joseph, S/o.Narasayya, Hindu, aged 62 years, Cultivation, D.No.140, Kesanapalli – Padamatipalem, Malikipuram Mandal.
2.Dondapati Arjunaswami, S/o.Buli Venkayya, Hindu, aged 69 years, Retired Employee, R/o.D.No.145/1, Kesanapalli – Padamatipalem, Malikipuram Mandal. ...Plaintiffs
and
1. Bunga Israil, S/o.Chandrayya, Christian, aged 75 years, Pastor, resident of Kesnapalli – Padamatipalem, Malikipuram Mandal.
2. Bunga Joseph, S/o.Israil, Christian, aged 45 years, Driver, resident of Kesanapalli – Padamatipalem, Malikipuram Mandal.
3. Bunga Ratnakumar, S/o.Israil, Christian, aged 43 years, Pastor, resident of Kesanapalli – Padamatipalem, Malikipuram Mandal.
4. Bunga Chittibabu, S/o.Israil, Christian, aged 40 years, Inam, resident of Kesanapalli – Padamatipalem, Malikipuram Mandal. ...Defendants
This suit is coming before me on 04.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Surya Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Smt.M.V.Suryakantham, Advocate for the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 and the defendant No.2 remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:
: J U D G M E N T :
1.This suit is filed by the GPA holders of plaintiff Church seeking declaration over plaint schedule property and for consequential recovery of its possession and to ascertain the future profits by filing separate application and for costs of the suit.
The averments of plaint in nutshell as follows ::
2.It is submitted that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to plaintiff Church i.e., Indian Pentecoastal Church, Antervedipalem, Sakhinetipalli Mandal. The plaintiff institution got the said property under a registered sale deed dt.13.05.1954 from one Chavvakula
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 2 //
Chandraiah, who got the same under a registered sale deed dt.11.09.1945 along with some other properties. Since the date of execution of above said sale deed the plaintiff institution has been in possession and enjoyment over the same by erecting a small shed. The plaintiff has been in management of said church by appointing Pastors from time to time. The 1st defendant appointed as a Pastor in the year 2000 to the plaintiff church on payment of Honororium. Similarly the plaintiff institution has got several other Churches in the neighbouring villages are being run in the name and style of Indian Pentecoastal Church. The Christian believers used to contribute amounts for the development of above said Churches. Taking advantage of the president of Church has been moving to other countries on his devotional and religional affairs the 1st defendant started illegal constructions in the plaint schedule property in the year 2005. The believers i.e., the GPA holders in this case along with some other persons objected for the same and filed a suit vide OS.No.205/2009. The President of Church came to know illegal acts of 1st defendant and his sons i.e., the defendants 2 to 4. They also creating some documents to knock away the entire plaint schedule property and they went to an extent by denying the title of plaintiff’s institution. The president of the Church is not in a position to look after the court matters by filing suit to protect the valuable property of Church. As such he executed a registered General Power of Attorney dt.31.08.2015 in favour of the persons who filed the earlier suit against the 1st defendant and got filed this suit. Hence, the GPA holders requested the Hon'ble Court to declare the title of plaintiff church over the plaint schedule property and consequential delivery of the same.
3.After receipt of summons from this Hon’ble Court the defendants appeared through their counsel and the 1st defendants filed written statement and same was adopted by the contesting defendants. The brief averments stemming out from the written statement of defendant No.1 as follows : The defendant No.1 denied all the averments mentioned in the plaint in verbatim. He further submitted that either the plaintiff or the executant of GPA Patchigalla Samuel Finny has no right, title or interest over the plaint schedule property. The said Samuel Finny has no right to represent the Indian Pentecoastal Church. As such he has no power to
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 3 //
execute GPA in favour of the persons who filed the present suit. Previously the attorney holders along with another person filed a suit vide OS.No.209/2005 seeking permanent injunction against the 1st defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property claiming that the said property belongs to their family and their ancestors started the church in it. Even prior to filing of the above suit the 1st defendant also filed a caveat asserting his right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant and their family members are in possession and enjoyment of the said property and also constructed the Church and house as thatched sheds and subsequently converted the Church with burnt bricks with cement plastering and asbestos sheet roof. The 1st defendant also constructed the house with mud walls and thatched roof. As the house became dilapidated, he made preparation to construct building in the place of thatched shed. In that connection the power of attorney holders, who are retired employees and Hindus filed a suit vide OS.No.209/2005 to grab the plaint schedule property and obtained alleged GPA from Samuel Finny. The 1st defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute rights for the last 40 years to the knowledge of one and all in the village. According to the recitals in document dt.13.05.1954 the property covered under it belongs to Indian Pentecostal Church God and it was executed in the name of its employees and the GPA has nothing to do with the said Church. The Indian Pentecostal Church of God was established by Pastor K.E.Abrham who is origin of Kerala and the Church got its employees all over India. As such the GPA Samuel Finny has no right to execute any document in favour of the persons who filed the suits. The said Samuel Finny came to Antervedipalem in the year 1996 and prior to that he worked as Pastor at Bhimavaram at Manna Mission. The 1st defendant constructed a Church and house in the plaint schedule property and he has been paying necessary taxes to the concerned departments for the last several years. He also perfected his title even against the Government also. He neither worked under said Samuel Finny nor received any salary. The 1st defendant had executed three registered settlement deeds on 26.02.2005 in favour of defendants 2 to 4 who are his sons in an extent of Ac.0.04½ cents each and delivered possession of the same. Since then they are in possession and enjoyment of their respective properties entrusted to them. As such there is no
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 4 //
cause of action for the GPA holders to file this suit by virtue of the GPA executed in their favour. Hence, the 1st defendant requested the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suit.
4.Basing on the averments in the plaint and written statement the issues are one and the same :
1. Whether the plaintiff institution entitled for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property ?
2. Whether the plaintiff institution is entitled for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future profits over the plaint schedule property ?
4. To what relief ?
5. During the course of the trial the PWs.1 to 5 were examined on behalf of plaintiff and exhibited documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 and Exs.A10 to A12 marked by consent. On behalf of defendants DW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.
6. Heard both sides.
7.The counsel or the plaintiff argued that the plaint schedule property was purchased in the name of plaintiff church i.e., Indian Pentecostal Church represented by the then Trustees by name P.Paramjyothi, Injeti Yacob, Jillela James and not purchased in the name of Indian Pentecostal Church of God as contended by the defendants. The power attorney holders filed the present suit to safeguard the property of plaintiff church and not for any personal gains. The previous suit also filed by them to restrain the 1st defendant from raising constructions in the plaint schedule property which is not belongs to him. The 1st defendant was appointed as Pastor by then authorities of Indian Pentecostal Church and later taking advantage of proper representation of the Church, he try to convert the same as his personal property. While crossexamination the son of 1st defendant categorically admitted that there is no document in the name of his father in respect of the plaint schedule property, as the said property was belongs to the Government and same was occupied by his father. He further admitted that Exs.A2 and A3 were created by the plaintiff, that itself sufficient that there is no
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 5 //
truth in the contention of defendants. The 1st defendant also executed three gift deeds in favour of defendants 2 to 4 to grab the plaint schedule property without having any manner of right. The defendants also failed to file those gift deeds in order to suppress the existence of Church in the plaint schedule property. As could be seen from the documents i.e., Exs.A6 to A9 the 1st defendant received honorarium for his services as Pastor. The defendants did not produce any medical certificate showing the illness of 1st defendant. They purposefully did not choose to examine the 1st defendant to suppress the real facts pertaining to the plaintiff church who well known about the affairs of it. It clearly shows that there are no bonafides on the part of defendants and without having any manner of right and title the 1st defendant had executed Exs.A10 to A12 in favour of defendants 2 to 4 which are not valid under the eye of law. Hence, the GPA holders are entitled for the relief as prayed in the suit.
Per contra the counsel for the defendants argued that the GPA holders who filed the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff Church are not the true Christians and they are Hindus. The person who executed Ex.A1 has no right to execute the said document. There is no document
before the court that PW.3 appointed as President to the plaintiff
Church. As per the evidence of PW.3 there will be a committee to every church to manage its affairs. But no resolution was passed by the said committee by appointing PW.3 as the President of the Church. As such PW.3 has no right to execute any document in respect of the plaint schedule property. As per the recitals in Ex.A2 the said property was executed in the name of employees of Indian Pentecostal Church of God, which is nothing to do with the plaintiff Church. The Indian Pentecostal Church of God was established by one K.E.Abraham who belongs to Kerala and got its own employees all over India. As such PW.3 is nothing to do with the plaintiff church. Previously the GPA holders along with some other persons filed a suit vide OS.No.209/2005 against the 1st defendant seeking permanent injunction over the plaint schedule property. In the said suit they pleaded that the plaint schedule property belongs to their ancestors and they also constructed a small church in it. The said suit and the Appeal filed against it went against them. Later the present suit was brought into existence through GPA to grab the entire plaint schedule property. As per the admission of PW.3 he used to
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 6 //
appoint Coordinators to look after the entire affairs of all the Churches in his control. When such is the case what is the necessity for him to execute Ex.A1 GPA in favour of the NonChristians. He is at liberty to file the present suit through the Coordinators who are managing the affairs of Churches. The filing of present suit through GPA holders clearly goes to show that the plaintiff Church has no title over the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant has been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property since last 40 years. He also executed three gift deeds in favour of defendants 2 to 4 in an extent of Ac.0.04½ cents each and delivered its possession. As such the plaintiff Church has nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. In order to trouble the defendants by one way or the other, the present suit is filed basing on Ex.A1. GPA. Hence, the defendants requested the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suit.
Issue Nos.1& 3 :
8.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the GPA holders 1 and 2 filed their chief affidavits by reiterating all the averments mentioned in the plaint and same are treated as their chiefexamination. They also exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. They are Ex.A1 is the GPA dt.31.08.2015 executed by Indian Pentecostal Church in favour of PW.1 and 2nd plaintiff, Ex.A2 is the registration extract of sale deed dt.13.05.1954 stands in the name of Institution, Ex.A3 is the link document dt.11.09.1945 of Ex.A1, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of plaint in
OS.No.209/2005 on the file of this court along with written statement
filed by defendants in this case, Ex.A5 is the certified copy of Decree and Judgment in OS.No.209/2005, Ex.A6 is the certified copy of Ex.X1 in
OS.209/2005, Ex.A7 is the certified copy of Ex.X2 in OS.No.209/2005,
Ex.A8 is the certified copy of Ex.X3 in OS.No.209/2005, Ex.A9 is the certified copy of Ex.X4 in OS.No.209/2005. The person who executed GPA in favour of PWs.1 and 2 examined as PW.3, who deposed on a par with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. PW.4 who is third party to the proceedings deposed in his evidence that he got his property on the western side of plaint schedule property and the Church in the plaint schedule property was under the management of Indian Pentecostal Church along with other Churches. The 1st defendant used to work as a Pastor in the Church situated in the plaint schedule property by
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 7 //
receiving Honororium. The defendants have no title over the plaint schedule property. PW.5 who is working as Pastor in Indian Pentecostal Church, Padamatipalem deposed in his evidence that the 1st defendant working as Pastor in the plaintiff Church on receiving Honorarium. The father of PW.3 by name Paramjyothi used to be the Trustee of plaintiff Church in whose tenure the plaint schedule property was acquired. The 1st defendant worked as a Pastor in the Church situated in the plaint schedule property. While crossexamination DW.1 stated that “there is no document to show that the plaint schedule property stood in the name of his father. He has gone through the documents filed along with the plaint. He did not know the original owners of plaint schedule property. His father executed three gift deeds in the year 2005 and the said documents are washed away in the year 2013 Cyclone. In the said documents the source of title was mentioned as occupied. There is no document to show that the 1st defendant constructed a Church in the plaint schedule property. He has not filed any medical certificate that the 1st defendant was not in a position to give evidence. His father i.e., the 1st defendant occupied the Government land. He knew the particulars of suit filed by PWs.1 and 2 against his father”.
9.In order to prove the allegations mentioned in the written statement the 4th defendant himself examined as DW.1 and reiterated all the allegations in the written statement in lieu of his chief affidavit. He also exhibited documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B6. They are Ex.B1 is the two photographs, Ex.B2 is the photograph, Ex.B3 is the LOGO, Ex.B4 is the LOGO, Ex.B5 is the certified copy of Caveat in OS.No.209/2005, Ex.B6 is the certified copy of certificate issued by the Secretary, Grampanchayat, Padamatipalem. While crossexamination PW.1 stated that “himself and PW.2 filed a suit against the 1st defendant vide
OS.No.209/2005 seeking permanent injunction against the self same
plaint schedule property in this case. In the said case they contended the plaint schedule property was their ancestral property and their ancestors constructed a Church in it. Prior to filing of this suit the 1st defendant filed a caveat against them by claiming absolute rights over the plaint schedule property. Prior to 1945 one Patchigolla Paramjyothi established the Indian Pentecostal Organization, but there is no document to show the same. He did not know whether the said Church is a registered one
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 8 //
or not. But there is no document to show with regard to the existence of Church. He did not file any document to show that PW.3 is the President of above said Church. He did not file any document to show that the plaintiff Church gave any authority to PW.3 to file this suit through him. As per Ex.A2 the vendor sold the property to Indian Pentecostal Society. He did not know whether the above said society got established by K.E.Abraham and it got branches all over in India. PW.3 has got document to show that the schedule property was mutated in revenue records. There are two cattle houses in the plaint schedule property, one is for prayers and another is for residential. Since 1980 81 the 1st defendant has been paying the house tax to the cattle sheds. He worked several years in Gulf countries and returned to India, so also PW.2 came to his village after retirement”. While crossexamination PW.2 stated that “in all his Service Registers his religion is mentioned as Hindu, so also in the school records of his children. The plaintiff church has got byelaws, rules and regulations and same were not filed into court. He did not receive any document from PW.3 in respect of plaintiff church. The entire documents pertaining to the plaintiff church are filed into court. He did not know the existence of original document of plaint schedule property. He did not know when PW.3 became the President of plaintiff church after the death of his father. The plaint schedule property was mutated in revenue records in the name of Trustees by name Paramjyothi, Yacob and Jillela James. But no such record was filed into court. Either himself or PW.3 never paid any tax to the structures situated in plaint schedule property. Since 198081 onwards the 1st defendant has been paying the taxes to the Grampanchayat in his name to the structures situated in plaint schedule property. There is no document to show that the plaintiff church paid the amounts to the 1st defendant to pay the tax to the structures. Exs.A6 to A9 did not disclose with regard to appointment of 1st defendant as Pastor to the plaintiff church. He did not know whether PW.3 used to collect donation from abroad people for the development of Christian Religion”.
While crossexamination PW.3 stated that “the Indian Pentecostal Church was registered in the year 1984 and it got its own byelaws and registration certificate, but the said documents are not filed into court. He was appointed as President in the year 1994 by the committee. But
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 9 //
the said document was not filed into court, though the church maintaining the entire records. The Indian Pentecoastal Church and the Indian Pentecoastal Church of God are not one and the same. The Indian Pentecoastal Church of God was started by K.E.Abraham in the year 1989 at Kerala and same was registered in the year 1932 at Eluru of West Godavari District. The Head Office is situated at Kerala. His father P.L.Paramjyothi was appointed as Pastor and also acted as a Executive Committee Member for some period. He also worked as Pastor in Rock Church and Manna Ministries, Bhimavaram from 1986 to 1994. He has no personal knowledge about the purchase of property under Ex.A2. There is no document to show that the plaintiff church was in possession and enjoyment of the property covered under Ex.A2 since the date of its purchase, so also no record to show with regard to payment of tax. He did not know with regard to existence of any door number to the said Church. PWs.1 and 2 informed to him that they are belongs to Christian Religion. As per Ex.A1 there is no existence of Church building in the plaint schedule property. He did not handover the original record to PWs.1 and 2 at the time of execution of Ex.A1. He has gone through the particulars of earlier suit filed by PWs.1 and 2. The structures appeared in Ex.B1 photograph belongs to Indian Pentecoastal Church at Antervedipalem. Originally the above said church used to locate in the photograph shown under Ex.B2. The LOGO appeared in Ex.B3 belongs to Indian Pentecoastal Church Ministries, whereas the another LOGO appeared in Ex.B4 belongs to Indian Pentecoastal Church of God. There are 40 Churches in East Godavari, West Godavari and Krishna Districts under his control. He used to maintain the accounts in respect of the donations and the expenditure incurred towards salaries and other expenses. There is no document to show that he appointed 1st defendant as Pastor in the plaintiff Church and with regard to payment of
Honororium. There is no evidence to show with regard to the
contributions received from the Christian believers for development of the plaintiff Church. The Coordinators appointed by him has been looking after the affairs of all the Churches, which are in the control of Indian Pentecoastal Church. By the date of execution of Ex.A1 the sister of Coordinator was in existence. There is no Coordinator system in the byelaws of Church. As per byelaws there will be a committee consists of President, Secretary, Treasurer and six other members. All the
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 10 //
committee members used to jointly took decision and passed resolutions. In the year 2015 the committee passed a resolution authorizing the plaintiff to file this suit. But, Ex.A1 is silent with regard to the said resolution. The property covered under Ex.A2 belongs to Indian Pentecostal Church of God represented by Trustees. As per Ex.A2 his father is one of the Employee as well as Trustee”.
While crossexamination PW.4 stated that “he has not gone through the documents relating to the Church and the details of accounts maintained by PW.1. He did not know whether 1st defendant received any amounts towards Honorarium from the management of Church. Recently he returned to India in the year 2018. As per records he was Hindu, but he is a Christian believer”. While crossexamination PW.5 stated that “there is no document to show that he has been working as Pastor in Indian Pentecostal Church at Padamatipalem. He has not gone through the documents relating to the plaintiff Church. There are huts in the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant has been residing in the plaint schedule property till today by paying necessary taxes”.
10. On culmination of both side evidence and documents available on record the main case of the plaintiff is that the defendants are nothing to do with the property. The 1st defendant was appointed as Pastor long back on payment of Honorarium and later he try to convert the said property as his own without having any manner of right. In the year 2005 when the 1st defendant try to raise constructions in the plaint schedule property without any manner of right the Power of Attorney Holders along with some other persons filed a suit vide OS.No.209/2005 to protect the property of Church. But, the said suit was dismissed with a clear finding that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The present suit is filed seeking declaration over the plaint schedule property within time and the earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs is not bar to the present suit. During the course of evidence DW.1 categorically admitted that there is no document with them in respect of the plaint schedule property. As such the 1st defendant has no manner of right to execute Exs.A10 to A12 in favour of defendants 2 to 4 in respect of the plaint schedule property. Hence, the present suit.
Whereas, the main case of the defendants ist hat the plaintiff church is
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 11 //
nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. Exs.A2 and A3 are created for the purpose of filing the present suit. As per the clear admission of PW.3 the plaint schedule property originally belongs to the Indian Pentecostal Church of God which was established by K.E.Abraham who is origin of Kerala long back. Moreover there is no document to show that PW.3 is appointed as President to the plaintiff church after the death of his father. Though PWs.1 to 3 categorically admitted in their evidence with regard to production of documents no document was filed before the court with regard to the appointment of PW.3 as President to the plaintiff Church. In those circumstances PW.3 has no authority to execute Ex.A1 GPA in favour of PWs.1 and 2. As such the Power of Attorney Holders has no right to seek any relief on behalf of the plaintiff church. Moreover they are not the Christians to represent the plaintiff church. In order to grab the plaint schedule property after retirement both PWs.1 and 2 hatched up a plan and filed the earlier suit as well as the present suit without any manner of right. Hence, the defendants requested the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suit.
11. The present suit is filed by the power of attorney holders on behalf of the plaintiff church seeking declaration over the plaint schedule property by virtue of Exs.A2 and A3 sale deeds. The Power Attorney holders also examined as PWs.1 and 2 by reiterating all the averments mentioned in the plaint by ascertaining the title of plaintiff church. They also produced the documents Exs.A1 to A12 to support their contention. Out of all the documents, only Exs.A2 and A3 are the important documents which discloses about the purchase of plaint schedule property. As could be seen from Ex.A2 document the said document was executed on 13.05.1954 by the persons relating to Indian Pentecost God Sangham in favour of Razolu Taluka Kesanapalli Pentecost Church employees Patchigolla Paramjyothi, Injeti Yacob, Jillella James. For better appreciation this court inclined to reiterate the recital in the said document i.e., ద.13.05.1954ససవతతరమ ఈ రజన ఇసడయన పసటకసస దవన ససఘమనక చసదన రజల తలలక కశనపలల పసతకసస చరర నమతతమ టటససల అయన ఇసడయన పసటకసస చరర ఉదదగల పచరగళళ లజరస గర కమరడ పరసజదత, ఇసజట వసకయద కమరడ యకబ, జలలల యసరతతస కమరడ జసస గరలక చవవకల సవమ గర కమరడ చసదదయద రయసచ ఇచరన కకయదసత వజ. As per the above said recitals no doubt the property covered under the said document sold to the Trustees and
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 12 //
Employees of Indian Pentecostal Church. Among the above three referred Trustees one of the Trustee is father of PW.3. There is no explanation with regard to the details of other Trustees. But as per the contention of defendants the plaint schedule property was purchased in the name of Indian Pentecostal Church of God by one K.E.Abraham who is origin of Kerala and the said institution was registered in the year 1932 at Eluru. But the recitals in Ex.A2 document did not reflect the same. Except the oral testimony of defendants and the admission made by PW.3 during the course of evidence there is no positive evidence before the court that the Indian Pentecostal Church of God was in existence till today. The defendants also produced LOGOs under Exs.B3 and B4 to differentiate the plaintiff church and the Indian Pentecostal Church of God. But, the said documents are no way helpful to the case of defendants as seen from the recitals in Ex.A2. At the same time there is no dispute between the parties that the property covered under Ex.A2 document is the plaint schedule property. As per the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 the plaintiff church was established prior to 1945. Whereas, PW.3 admitted in his evidence that it was registered in the year 1984, for which there is no document before the court to believe the said contention. Whereas, as seen from the pamphlets and other photo clippings filed under Ex.A9 the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations were organized prior to 2005. That it clearly reveals that the plaintiff church was established prior to the execution of Ex.A2 sale deed. In the absence of any clear evidence and document this court can presume basing on Ex.A9 the plaintiff church was established prior to the execution of Ex.A2. Without establishing any Church the question of purchase of any property in favour of it does not arise. As such the evidence of PW.3 in this regard is not believable. In view of the aforementioned reasons it can safely conclude that the plaintiff church was established prior to the execution of Ex.A2 sale deed. Admittedly Ex.A2 was executed in the year 1954 which is a 30 years old document. As per Sec.90 of Indian Evidence Act all the recitals in the said document will be treated as true and correct in the absence of any contra evidence and documents. In the present case on hand except the oral testimony of defendants there is no positive evidence before the court to establish the title of defendants over the plaint schedule property. At the same time during the course of crossexamination DW.1 categorically admitted that the plaint schedule property and the property
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 13 //
covered under Exs.A10 to A12 are one and the same. In the absence of any positive evidence from the side of defendants it can safely conclude that the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff church. The plaintiff church alone the title holder of the property covered under Ex.A2 which is the plaint schedule property in this case.
12. Now, the clinching issue to be determined before the court is whether PWs.1 and 2 who are the Power of Attorney Holders, who filed the present suit has got locus standi to seek declaration on behalf of the plaintiff church. Admittedly the plaintiffs are nothing to do with the plaintiff church. As per their contention they are strantch believers of Christianity and they filed the present suit to protect the property of plaintiff church from the hands of defendants. Admittedly the plaintiff church is not a public institution as it is a private institution. As such there must be some representation to maintain the activities of it. PWs.1 and 2 did not hold any post in the plaintiff church to represent the same. As per the evidence on record even they are not the Christians to represent the said Church. At the same time there is no document before the court PWs.1 and 2 converted to Christianity. In case of public institution every citizen irrespective of caste and creed must represent to safeguard the public property. But the situation in this case is entirely different. The only basis for filing the present suit is Ex.A1 GPA which was executed by PW.3 in the capacity of President. But the defendants completely denied the execution of Ex.A1 stating that PW.3 has no right to execute the said document in favour of PWs.1 and 2. As such Ex.A1 GPA is liable for scrutiny.
13. As per Ex.A1, PW.3 was appointed as President of the plaintiff church. But there is no document before the court to establish the same. During the course of crossexamination PWs.1 to 3 categorically admitted that the documents relating to the appointment of PW.3 as President was already filed into court. But, there is no such document
before the court. As per the clear admission of PW.3 there were 40
Churches in East Godavari, West Godavari and Krishna Districts under his management. When such is the case he must bound to maintain the accounts for each and every Church. PW.3 also admitted in his evidence with regard to maintaining of accounts in each church with regard to receiving of donations from the Sympathizers and believers and
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 14 //
expenditure incurred in each church. But the said accounts are not filed into court to show that the plaintiff church was under the management of PW.3. Further as per the evidence of PW.3 there will be a committee to each and every Church consisting of President, Secretary, Treasurer and six other members. The said committee used to take decisions jointly when any issues arise in respect of the Church. As per his evidence in the year 2015 the said committee authorized PWs.1 and 2 to file this suit. The resolution passed by the said committee was not filed into court. When there is a specific resolution from the committee there is no need again to execute Ex.A1 in favour of PWs.1 and 2 by PW.3. As such I do not see any merits in the contention of PWs.1 to 3 with regard to the maintaining of Church by PW.3 and he was appointed as President to execute Ex.A1 in favour of PWs.1 and 2. While addressing the arguments the counsel for the defendants pointed out with regard to the nature and attitude of PW.3 while giving evidence. But, as per the material available on record the evidence of PW.3 is crucial to come to a proper conclusion with regard to the maintenance of the church. But, the evidence of PW.3 did not reveal any such information with regard to the maintaining of church by him. On scrutiny of the entire crossexamination of PW.3 clearly goes to show that there is no iota of truth in his contention with regard to the management of plaintiff church and electing him as President after the death of his father. At the same time PW.3 also contended that there were some coordinators to look after the affairs of Churches in his absence. When such is the case what is the necessity for him to execute Ex.A1 in favour of PWs.1 and 2 who are nothing to do with the plaintiff church in any manner. All the referred circumstances clearly goes to show that PW.3 has no authority to execute Ex.A1 GPA in favour of PWs.1 and 2. There is no valid document before the court that PW.3 was appointed as President to the plaintiff church and the same is under his management. Without producing any evidence with regard to the management of church, PW.3 has no authority to execute Ex.A1 GPA in favour of PWs.1 and 2. As such the power of attorneys have no right to file this suit basing on Ex.A1 which is nonest under eye of law.
14. Previously PWs.1 and 2 along with some other person filed a suit vide OS.No.209/2005 against the 1st defendant in this case seeking permanent injunction restraining him from raising any constructions in
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 15 //
the plaint schedule property. In the said suit the plaint schedule property is shown as Ac.0.13 cents. Prior to filing of the above said suit the 1st defendant also filed a caveat claiming absolute rights over the Ac.0.13cents of property. But the above suit was dismissed with a clear finding that the 1st defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the said property as on the date of filing this suit. The appeal preferred against it also dismissed. But, the present suit is filed seeking declaration over the entire plaint schedule property by virtue of Exs.A2 and A3. As such the previous suit filed by the plaintiff is not a bar to the present suit as pointed out by the counsel for defendants. As could be seen from the evidence on record no doubt the plea taken by the plaintiffs in the above suit and the plea taken in this suit in respect of title is entirely different. The said aspect was already decided by this
Hon'ble Court at the time of declaring the title over the plaint schedule
property. As such no credence will be given to the objection raised by the counsel for defendants on this aspect. Subsequently after dismissal of the suit in OS.No.209/2005 the 1st defendant had executed three gift deeds in favour of defendants 2 to 4 under Exs.A10 to A12. In the said gift deeds it was clearly mentioned that the said property was exclusively belongs to the 1st defendant. But there is no document before the court to establish the same. As could be seen from the gift deeds marked under Exs.A10 to A12 the eastern boundary is shown as Indian Pentecostal Church. During the course of evidence DW.1 who is 4th defendant in the suit and the son of 1st defendant categorically admitted that the Church in the plaint schedule property was constructed by his father i.e., the 1st defendant and there is no document to that effect. As per the admission of DW.1 the 1st defendant did not obtain any permission from the Grampanchayat to raise any constructions in the plaint schedule property. It clearly shows that the 1st defendant highhandedly raised constructions in the plaint schedule property without any manner of right. At the same time while addressing the arguments the counsel for the defendants vehemently argued that the defendants are nothing to do with the Church situated in the plaint schedule property. It clearly shows that there is no clarity for the defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property. As per the arguments of counsel for defendants that the defendants are only concerned in respect of Ac.0.13 cents only. But, during the course of
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 16 //
evidence DW.1 categorically admitted that the above Ac.0.13 cents of property which covered under Exs.A10 to A12 was part and parcel of the plaint schedule property. As such there is no truth in the contention of defendants with regard to the Church situated in the plaint schedule property. Further the plaintiffs also examined PWs.4 and 5 to establish the possession of defendants over the plaint schedule property, for which there is no dispute between the parties. Admittedly the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till today. At the same time PWs.4 and 5 pleaded ignorance with regard to the particulars of documents relating to the plaint schedule property. As such the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 is no way helpful to the case of plaintiffs.
15. Coming to the case of defendants, the 1st defendant did not turn up into the witness box to give evidence who is origin for the entire dispute. The defendants did not file any medical certificate showing the illness of the 1st defendant. In the absence of any medical certificate I find force in the contention of plaintiffs that in order to suppress real facts before the court the defendants purposefully hide the 1st defendant without coming into the witness box. There is every opportunity for the defendants to elicit some true facts in respect of plaint schedule property, if the 1st defendant enter into the witness box. Due to the absence of 1st defendant the plaintiffs lost their valuable right of crossexamination of 1st defendant to elicit the true facts before this Hon'ble Court with regard to the appointing of 1st defendant as a Pastor in the plaintiff church. The first and foremost contention of plaintiffs is that the 1st defendant is appointed as Pastor soon after the establishment of church in the plaint schedule property. But the defendants denied the same in their written statement as well as in the evidence. But, the documents filed under Exs.A6 to A9 clearly denotes with regard to the connection of 1st defendant with the Indian Pentecostal Church. In one of the document marked as Ex.A8 the 1st defendant is noted as Pastor B.Israil IPC Church, Padamatipalem, East Godavari District. In one of the document it was also reflected with regard to the payment of honorarium to the 1st defendant. In some other document the 1st defendant also gave some donations for the welfare of the IPC church. All the above referred circumstances clearly goes to show that the 1st defendant got some
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 17 //
connection with the plaintiff church. But he bluntly denied with regard to the relationship with the IPC church. As such there are no bonafides on the part of 1st defendant.
16. On behalf of 1st defendant the 4th defendant was examined as DW.1. On scrutiny of the entire evidence of DW.1 the title of 1st defendant also defective one. During the course of evidence DW.1 categorically admitted that there is no document in favour of 1st defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property. As per his evidence the property was belongs to the Government and same was occupied by the 1st defendant. But the said contention is quite contra to the averments mentioned in the caveat and written statement filed by the 1st defendant in the earlier proceedings. As per the proceedings the property was absolutely belongs to the 1st defendant. But there is no document to that effect. In the gift deeds executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 2 to 4 in an extent of Ac.0.04½ cents under Exs.A10 to A12, it was clearly mentioned that the property was given by the Government to the 1st defendant for the purpose of construction of house. But there is no document to establish the same. At the same time it is a clear admission from the mouth of DW.1 that the property covered under all the gift deeds and the plaint schedule property are one and the same. When such is the case this court can think about the validity of the gift deeds executed by the 1st defendant. In all the gift deeds the southern boundary is shown as Indian Pentecostal Church. Hence, it is clear that there is a Church in the plaint schedule property in the name of Indian Pentecostal Church. The documents marked under Exs.A6 to A9 clearly goes to show with regard to the connection of 1st defendant with the Indian Pentecostal Church. But, there is no document before the court that the 1st defendant was appointed as Pastor as alleged by the defendants. In the absence of the above said documents this court can presume that the 1st defendant might have appointed as Pastor in the church situated in the plaint schedule property by the then Trustees. As such the 1st defendant came into possession of entire plaint schedule property. Taking advantage of any written document the 1st defendant might have claiming title over it without any basis and executed gift deeds in favour of defendants 2 to 4 without any manner of right. As such the gift deeds executed in favour of defendants 2 to 4 under Exs.A10 to A12 are non
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 18 //
est under law. There is no manner of right and title over the plaint schedule property to execute the above said gift deeds. For the purpose of creating some documents only those are pressed into service. In view of the aforementioned reasons the defendants have no title over the plaint schedule property, as it is vested with the plaintiff church. But, PWs.1 and 2 failed to establish their locus stand to file the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff church to declare the title over it. The person who issued GPA in favour of PWs.1 and 2 has no authority to issue the same on behalf of the plaintiff church. As such the PWs.1 and 2 are not entitled for any relief under this suit, though the title of plaint schedule property vested with the plaintiff church. Accordingly these issues are answered.
Issue No.2 :
17. The relief of declaration went against the contention of plaintiff church. The relief of consequential possession is basing upon the relief of declaration. As such the plaintiffs are also not entitled for the consequential relief. Accordingly this issue answered.
Issue No.4 :
In view of the answers to Issues Nos.1 to 3 the suit is dismissed.
18. In the result, this suit is dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I direct each party do bear their own costs.
Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23 rd day of March, 2020.
Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiffs : PW.1 :: D.Joseph PW.2 :: D.Arjuna Swami PW.3:: P.Samuel Finny PW.4:: Y.Satyanarayana PW.5:: D.Vasantha Rao
OS.No.153/2015 Page No.// 19 //
For defendants : DW.1:: B.Chitti Babu
Documents marked
For plaintiffs : Ex.A1:: 31.08.2015 GPA executed by Indian Pentecostal Church in favour of PW.1 and 2nd plaintiff. Ex.A2:: 13.05.1954 Registration extract of sale deed stands in the name of Institution. Ex.A3:: 11.09.1945 Link document of Ex.A1 Ex.A4::Certified copy of plaint in OS.No.209/2005 on the file of this court along with written statement filed by defendants in this case. Ex.A5::Certified copy of Decree and Judgment in
OS.No.209/2005
Ex.A6::Certified copy of Ex.X1 in OS.No.209/2005 Ex.A7::Certified copy of Ex.X2 in OS.No.209/2005 Ex.A8::Certified copy of Ex.X3 in OS.No.209/2005 Ex.A9::Certified copy of Ex.X4 in OS.No.209/2005 ExA10:: 26.05.2005 Registration extract of gift settlement deed ExA11:: 26.05.2005 Registration extract of gift settlement deed ExA12:: 26.05.2005 Registration extract of gift settlement deed For defendants : Ex.B1::Two photographs Ex.B2::Photograph Ex.B3::LOGO Ex.B4::LOGO Ex.B5::Certified copy of Caveat in OS.No.209/2005 Ex.B6::Certified copy of certificate issued by the Secretary, Grampanchayat, Padamatipalem.
JCJ – Cum – JMFC, RZL.
IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAZOLE
Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy,
Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole
Monday, this the 23rd day of March, 2020
OS.No.153/2015 OS.No.153/2015
Between : Indian Pentecostal Church, Antervedipalem, Reptd.by its President, Pachigolla Samuel Finny, S/o.P.L.Paramjyothi, aged 55 years, R/o.D.No.537, Antervedipalem, represented by his General Power of Attorney Holders:
1.Dondapati Joseph, S/o.Narasayya, Hindu, aged 62 years, Cultivation, D.No.140, Kesanapalli – Padamatipalem, Malikipuram Mandal.
2.Dondapati Arjunaswami, S/o.Buli Venkayya, Hindu, aged 69 years, Retired Employee, R/o.D.No.145/1, Kesanapalli – Padamatipalem, Malikipuram Mandal. ...Plaintiffs
and
1.Bunga Israil, S/o.Chandrayya, Christian, aged 75 years, Pastor, resident of Kesnapalli – Padamatipalem, Malikipuram Mandal.
2.Bunga Joseph, S/o.Israil, Christian, aged 45 years, Driver, resident of Kesanapalli – Padamatipalem, Malikipuram Mandal.
3.Bunga Ratnakumar, S/o.Israil, Christian, aged 43 years, Pastor, resident of Kesanapalli – Padamatipalem, Malikipuram Mandal.
4.Bunga Chittibabu, S/o.Israil, Christian, aged 40 years, Inam, resident of Kesanapalli – Padamatipalem, Malikipuram Mandal. ...Defendants Purpose of the suit : This suit is filed by the GPA holders of plaintiff Church seeking declaration over plaint schedule property and for consequential recovery of its possession and to ascertain the future profits by filing separate application and for costs of the suit.
Date of filing : 09.11.2015 Date of Registration : 10.12.2015
Cause of Action :
The cause of action for the suit arose on 13.05.1954 when the plaintiff institution purchased the plaint schedule property and since then is in possession and enjoyment of the same and established a church in the name and style of Indian Pentecostal Church in the plaint schedule property long back and used to appoint pastors on payment of
honorarium to manage the affairs of church and like wise the 1st
defendant appointed as a pastor on payment of honorarium and subsequently when the 1st defendant in the year 2005 started making illegal constructions in the plaint schedule property and started creation of false documents in the name of defendants 2 to 4 to grab the plaint schedule property and the plaintiffs institution authority came to know about the acts of defendants and about the filing of suit in
OS.No.209/2005 and ultimately decided to file a suit to protect the
interest of plaintiffs institution in respect of plaint schedule property and as such the President, General Power of Attorney dt.31.08.2015 and inspite of disputes and when the defendants did not agree for the claim of plaintiffs institution and went to an extent of denying the title and at Padamatipalem village where the plaint schedule property and where the defendants are residing which is within the jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court.
Value of the suit: Value of the suit for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.1,28,000/ as per SubRegistrar’s Market Value Certificate and ¾th value thereon comes to Rs.96,000/.
Hence, a Court Fee of Rs.3,346/ is paid thereon under Sch.I, Art.1(c) of APCF & SV Act.
This suit is coming before me on 04.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Surya Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Smt.M.V.Suryakantham, Advocate for the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 and the defendant No.2 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:
1.that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed ;
2.that each party do bear their own costs towards costs of the suit. (Copy of plaint schedule is annexed to the decree)
Given under my hand and seal of the court this the 23rd day of March, 2020.
Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole.
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
CM & FC not filed by either side
JCJ – Cum – JMFC, RZL. Note: The parties are hereby directed to apply for return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as soon as possible within three years as the record will liable to be destroyed three years after the date of decree of order.
8499075250 JAGADEESH Mech