{"id":136769,"date":"2008-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008"},"modified":"2014-10-14T22:56:43","modified_gmt":"2014-10-14T17:26:43","slug":"fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Fr.M.P.Jose vs C.C.Mathai on 13 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Fr.M.P.Jose vs C.C.Mathai on 13 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nTr.P(C).No. 215 of 2008()\n\n\n1. FR.M.P.JOSE, S\/O. M.O.PAULOSE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. M.O.PAULOSE,S\/O.OUSEPH, AGED 86\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. C.C.MATHAI, S\/O. LT C.C.CHACKO,AGED 68\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. P.P.CHACKAPPAN, S\/O. LT PAILY,AGED 68\n\n3. ST MARY'S ORTHODOX CHURCH ,\n\n4. FR O J JACOB,S\/O. JOHN,AGED 57,\n\n5. VARGHESE, S\/O. LOOKOSE KATHANAR,\n\n6. C.C.GEORGE,S\/O.LT C.C.CHACKO,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.J.PHILIP\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :13\/11\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                       THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                          Tr.P(C) No.215 of 2008\n                                   and\n                          Tr.P(C) No.227 of 2008\n            = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = =\n          Dated this the    13th      day of November,     2008\n\n                               O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                                ————-\n<\/p>\n
\n      The common question for consideration in these petitions<\/p>\n
for transfer filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/p>\n
(for short, “the Code”) is whether the suits instituted in the<\/p>\n
regular civil courts are to be withdrawn and transferred to the<\/p>\n
First Additional District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam which is<\/p>\n
constituted as “the Special Court” for trial of cases connected<\/p>\n
with the Malankara Church Disputes. Since common question<\/p>\n
arose for consideration, these petitions are being disposed of by<\/p>\n
this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      2.     I have heard counsel on both sides and perused the<\/p>\n
records.\n<\/p>\n
      3.     Learned counsel for            petitioners contended that<\/p>\n
since it is a dispute involving Malankara Church, these cases are<\/p>\n
to be tried by the Special Court to avoid conflicting decisions. It<\/p>\n
is also the contention of the learned              counsel that though<\/p>\n
Special Court was initially constituted only till the end of<\/p>\n
February, 1997, it continued thereafter and by deeming fiction<\/p>\n
Tr.P(C) Nos.215 & 227 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                 -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
has now become         a permanent court.    Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents contended that the Special Court was constituted for trial<\/p>\n
of cases concerning Malankara Church disputes, those disputes are<\/p>\n
settled by the decision of the Apex Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan<\/p>\n
v. Moran Mar Marthoma (AIR<\/a> 1995 SC 2001), disputes now<\/p>\n
existing are only between some of the individual churches concerned<\/p>\n
and its    parishners and hence, cases as in these petitions      not<\/p>\n
necessarily be tried by the Special Court. Counsel pointed out that<\/p>\n
the Special Court is also functioning as a regular Additional District<\/p>\n
and Sessions Court       as well. Several  cases relating to disputes<\/p>\n
between the individual churches and some of its parishners are still<\/p>\n
pending consideration in the Special Court along with other regular<\/p>\n
cases made over to it by the learned Principal and Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Ernakulam and hence it is not necessary that these cases are also<\/p>\n
transferred to the Special     Court which would only   add to    the<\/p>\n
pendency in that court.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    Tr.P.C. No.215 of 2008 concerned O.S. No.287 of 2008 filed<\/p>\n
by respondents 1 and 2 in the Munsiff’s Court, Perumbavoor. Tr.P.C.<\/p>\n
No.227 of 2008 concerned O.S. No.130 2008 filed by the respondent<\/p>\n
in the Munsiff’s Court, Ettumanoor. Prayer is to withdraw these cases<\/p>\n
Tr.P(C) Nos.215 & 227 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                   -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
from those respective courts and transfer the same to the Special<\/p>\n
Court. Annexure B appended to these petitions is the copy of G.O<\/p>\n
(Rt.) No.1532\/76\/Home dated 30.6.1976 of Home (C) Department<\/p>\n
which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                   The    Registrar   of  High   Court  has\n\n            recommended that one Additional Session's\n\n            Court    may    be  established   at  Ernakulam\n\n<\/pre>\n
            exclusively for the Trial of cases connected<\/p>\n
            with Malankara church Disputes now pending in<\/p>\n
            various courts of the State.\n<\/p>\n
                   2.     Government        accept      the<\/p>\n
            recommendation and are pleased to accord<\/p>\n
            sanction for establishing a Special Court at<\/p>\n
            Ernakulam with the following staff exclusively<\/p>\n
            for trial of cases concerning Malankara Church<\/p>\n
            Disputes till the end of February, 1977″.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Annexure C is the copy of G.O(P)64\/77\/Fin. dated<\/p>\n
19.2.1977 of Finance (PR.U) Department.         That Government order<\/p>\n
concerned the test to be applied in examining a proposal to make a<\/p>\n
temporary post permanent (as per Annexure B referred above Special<\/p>\n
Court was constituted till the end of February, 1977). Relevant portion<\/p>\n
of Annexure C reads as follows:<\/p>\n
\nTr.P(C) Nos.215 & 227 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                  -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
            “Posts    which   have   been   continuously in<\/p>\n
            existence for a minimum period of five years<\/p>\n
            will be treated as permanent without further<\/p>\n
            Orders. This order is without prejudice to the<\/p>\n
            provisions of Government’s power for abolition<\/p>\n
            of     temporary     or      permanent   posts.\n<\/p>\n
            Notwithstanding these orders, in the case of<\/p>\n
            posts created for specific items of work which<\/p>\n
            are prima facie of a temporary nature, the head<\/p>\n
            of department, while proposing that spell of<\/p>\n
            continuener which completes or crosses the<\/p>\n
            five year limit should specifically examine and<\/p>\n
            record his views whether the posts should be<\/p>\n
            made permanent when they complete five<\/p>\n
            years or that they may be abolished on the<\/p>\n
            expiry of the proposed term or on completion of<\/p>\n
            the specific item of work”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.    Annexure D, G.O.(P) No.64\/77\/Fin. dated 19.2.1977 of<\/p>\n
Home (C) Department states that “Sanction is accorded for the<\/p>\n
continuance of the temporary courts and posts attached to them as<\/p>\n
detailed in the statement appended to this order till the end of<\/p>\n
February, 198- (year mentioned is 1982 as could be discerned from<\/p>\n
Annexure E). Annexure E is photocopy of the letter No.PIO97\/2007<\/p>\n
Tr.P(C) Nos.215 & 227 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                    -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
dated 5.9.2007 of Public Information Officer, High Court of Kerala<\/p>\n
Ernakulam addressed to Advocate Shri Philip P.J. Advocate Shri Philip<\/p>\n
P.J. requested for information under the Right to Information Act 2005<\/p>\n
from the High Court as to the continuance of the Special Court even<\/p>\n
after the time     prescribed in Annexure B.      The Public Information<\/p>\n
Officer informed Advocate Shri Philip P.J., after referring to the relevant<\/p>\n
Government Orders, thus:\n<\/p>\n
                   “So the posts have become permanent.<\/p>\n
             In view of that, the Court also may be deemed<\/p>\n
             to have become permanent. No other orders<\/p>\n
             declaring this Court as a permanent one is<\/p>\n
             available. Hence, the status of Special Court<\/p>\n
             for the trial of Malankara Church Disputes is<\/p>\n
             one of permanent nature with effect from<\/p>\n
             31.05.1981 and all disputes in the said matter<\/p>\n
             is to be filed before the Special Court”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       7.   It is in the light of Annexures B to E stated above, that<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioners contended that cases referred to in<\/p>\n
these petitions are to be withdrawn from the respective munsiff’s<\/p>\n
courts and made over to the Special Court.\n<\/p>\n
       8.   Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the<\/p>\n
Tr.P(C) Nos.215 & 227 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                   -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
High Court to transfer any suit, appeal or to withdraw any suit pending<\/p>\n
in courts subordinate to it and try or dispose of the same or, transfer,<\/p>\n
the same for trial or disposal to another court subordinate to it and<\/p>\n
competent to try or dispose of the same. In these petitions the only<\/p>\n
ground sought for transfer of the cases is that the Special Court has<\/p>\n
been constituted for trial of cases involving disputes of the nature<\/p>\n
involved in the suits referred to in these petitions and that unless suits<\/p>\n
are tried by the Special Court there is possibility of conflicting<\/p>\n
decisions.   Therefore the question whether       these cases are to be<\/p>\n
transferred to the Special Court has to be decided in the light of the<\/p>\n
above contentions alone.\n<\/p>\n
       9.    It  is clear from Annexure B that it was pursuant to a<\/p>\n
recommendation made by the Registrar of this Court that “one<\/p>\n
additional Sessions court may be established at Ernakulam exclusively<\/p>\n
for the trial of cases connected with Malankara Church Disputes now<\/p>\n
pending in various courts of the State (underline supplied) that the<\/p>\n
Government       accepted the recommendation and were         pleased to<\/p>\n
accord sanction for establishment of a Special Court at Ernakulam for<\/p>\n
trial for cases concerning Malankara Church Disputes till the end of<\/p>\n
February, 1977” (underline supplied).      It is therefore clear that the<\/p>\n
Tr.P(C) Nos.215 & 227 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                 -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
very    constitution of the Special Court was for trial of various cases<\/p>\n
connected with Malankara Church Disputes which then were pending<\/p>\n
in various courts of the State. It is true that by a deeming fiction as<\/p>\n
revealed from Annexures C to E, the Special Court continued to be in<\/p>\n
existence even after the original time fixed, i.e., till the end of<\/p>\n
February, 1977.\n<\/p>\n
      10.   To understand what exactly were the church disputes<\/p>\n
involved in the cases which were pending in various courts of the State<\/p>\n
as on the date of Annexure B constituting the Special Court, profitable<\/p>\n
reference can be made to the decision in P.M.A. Metropolitan’s<\/p>\n
case. The common dispute then existed concerned the correctness or<\/p>\n
the binding nature of the Hudaya Canon accepted by the Malankara<\/p>\n
Jacobite Syrian Community, whether the catholic established by the<\/p>\n
Patriatch   Abdul Messiah     was valid     and binding on the entire<\/p>\n
Malankara Church, whether by establishment of the Catholicate,<\/p>\n
Patriatch was deprived of his powers to ordain Metropolitans, etc.,<\/p>\n
whether Malankara Church became an autocephalous church and<\/p>\n
disputes of like nature. These disputes were settled by the decision in<\/p>\n
P.M.A. Metropolitan.\n<\/p>\n
      11.   O.S. No.287 of 2008 of the Munsiff’s Court, Perumbavoor<\/p>\n
Tr.P(C) Nos.215 & 227 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                  -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
referred in transfer petition No.215 of 2008 is filed by one C.C. Mathai<\/p>\n
and another against St.Mary’s Orthodox Syrian Church, Vadavucode.<\/p>\n
In paragraph 4 of the plaint (Annexure A) it is stated that there is no<\/p>\n
lawful Kaikkaran or trustee of the church duly elected in the general<\/p>\n
body of the church and making use of absence of proper Kaikkaran for<\/p>\n
administration the church, defendants 3 and 4 therein are trying to<\/p>\n
interfere in the administration of the church and misappropriate its<\/p>\n
assets.    Plaintiffs alleged that the whole funds of the church has<\/p>\n
been misused by defendants 3 and 4. Reliefs prayed for in that case is<\/p>\n
a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 3<\/p>\n
to 6 in the suit and their men from interfering with the administration<\/p>\n
of the church and its chappals and the plaint schedule properties and<\/p>\n
from utilising its funds or from administering the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
properties of the church, etc. Annexure A in Transfer Petition No.227<\/p>\n
of 2008 is the plaint in O.S. No.130 of 2008 of the Munsiff’s Court,<\/p>\n
Ettumanoor.     That suit was filed by   one Fr.O.S. Kuriakose against<\/p>\n
Fr.Andrews and others. It is averred in paragraph 8 of the plaint that<\/p>\n
the first defendant is now functioning as Priest in the plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
church without any lawful authority, first defendant is one among the<\/p>\n
persons who disowned the 1934 Constitution and is acting without any<\/p>\n
Tr.P(C) Nos.215 & 227 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                    -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
appointment orders from the present lawful Diocesan Metropolitan of<\/p>\n
Kottayam. Plaintiff claimed that he has been duly appointed as the<\/p>\n
Vicar of the church by the lawful Diocesan Metropolitan of Kottayam.<\/p>\n
On that premise, plaintiff prayed for a declaration that himself, his<\/p>\n
successors    and   priest    assistants   appointed   by   the  Diocesan<\/p>\n
Metropolitan of Kottayam are the lawfully appointed vicar and priest<\/p>\n
assistants entitled to function as such in the plaint A schedule church<\/p>\n
and for a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their<\/p>\n
supporters from preventing or obstructing the plaintiff and his lawfully<\/p>\n
appointed successors and priest assistants from functioning as such.<\/p>\n
       12.   A reading of the plaint in these cases would indicate that<\/p>\n
these cases did not involve any dispute regarding the validity or<\/p>\n
binding nature of the 1934 Constitution upheld by the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
P.M.A. Metropolitan’s case or, any of the disputes settled by that<\/p>\n
decision.    Therefore, it is not as if     these cases are to be tried<\/p>\n
exclusively   by the Special Court. There is also no possibility of any<\/p>\n
conflicting decisions    if these suits are tried by the respective regular<\/p>\n
civil courts. Hence, I am not persuaded to accept the contention of the<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioners that unless these suits are transferred to<\/p>\n
the Special Court, there will be conflicting decisions       on the same<\/p>\n
Tr.P(C) Nos.215 & 227 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
issue.\n<\/p>\n
      13.   As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents<\/p>\n
the Special Court referred above is also a regular Additional District<\/p>\n
and Sessions      Court trying various civil\/criminal cases including<\/p>\n
sessions cases made over to it for trial. Civil cases involving factional<\/p>\n
fights between the churches and its parishners             are pending<\/p>\n
consideration in the Special Court. In these circumstances, it is not<\/p>\n
appropriate that these suits, in the absence of any other special<\/p>\n
reasons such as     convenience of parties, etc.,   are withdrawn and<\/p>\n
transferred to the Special Court which would only           add to the<\/p>\n
pendency of cases in that court. Hence the request of the petitioners<\/p>\n
cannot be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      These petitions are therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                            THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\nvsv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Fr.M.P.Jose vs C.C.Mathai on 13 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Tr.P(C).No. 215 of 2008() 1. FR.M.P.JOSE, S\/O. M.O.PAULOSE, … Petitioner 2. M.O.PAULOSE,S\/O.OUSEPH, AGED 86 Vs 1. C.C.MATHAI, S\/O. LT C.C.CHACKO,AGED 68 … Respondent 2. P.P.CHACKAPPAN, S\/O. LT PAILY,AGED 68 3. ST MARY’S ORTHODOX CHURCH , 4. FR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFr.M.P.Jose vs C.C.Mathai on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fr.M.P.Jose vs C.C.Mathai on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-14T17:26:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Fr.M.P.Jose vs C.C.Mathai on 13 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-14T17:26:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1965,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Fr.M.P.Jose vs C.C.Mathai on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-14T17:26:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Fr.M.P.Jose vs C.C.Mathai on 13 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Fr.M.P.Jose vs C.C.Mathai on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Fr.M.P.Jose vs C.C.Mathai on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-14T17:26:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Fr.M.P.Jose vs C.C.Mathai on 13 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-14T17:26:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008"},"wordCount":1965,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008","name":"Fr.M.P.Jose vs C.C.Mathai on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-14T17:26:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fr-m-p-jose-vs-c-c-mathai-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Fr.M.P.Jose vs C.C.Mathai on 13 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136769","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=136769"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136769\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}