{"id":147524,"date":"2003-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003"},"modified":"2016-02-20T04:14:08","modified_gmt":"2016-02-19T22:44:08","slug":"c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003","title":{"rendered":"C.S.Robert vs M.Kanagappan on 29 April, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">C.S.Robert vs M.Kanagappan on 29 April, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 29\/04\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.JAYASIMHA BABU\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN\n\nL.P.A.No.80 of 1998\nand Cross Objection\nand\nC.M.P.Nos.10403 &amp; 11741 of 1998 &amp; 1434 of 2003\n\n\n1. C.S.Robert\n\n2. A.S.Arokiaraj\n   Trustees and representatives of Catholic\n   public of Vakampatti.        ...             Appellants.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. M.Kanagappan\n\n2. Parish Priest of\n   St.Sacred Heart Church,\n   N.Panchampatti,\n   Dindigul taluk.\n\n3. Parish Priest of\n   St.Joseph Church,\n   Main Road, Dindigul.\n\n4. The Arch Bishop of\n   Trichy Diocese,\n   Melapudur,\n   Trichy Town.\n\n5. M.John Stephen.\n\n6. A.Vimala\n\n7. Jeevamani\n\n8. Jayaseelan\n9. P.Xavier\n\n                                                ...             Respondents.\n\n                L.P.A.  filed against the judgment and decree dated  15.7.1998\nin  A.S.No.1174  of 1994 of this Court reversing the judgment and decree dated\n31.8.1994 in O.S.No.396 of 1993 on the file of Addl.  Sub Judge, Dindigul.\n\n!For appellants ::  Mr.T.R.Mani, Sr.counsel\n                for Mr.K.Srinivasan.\n\n^For respondents        ::  Mr.P.Peppin Fernando for R1 to R4.\n                Mr.D.Saravanan for R5 to R9.\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>                The question regarding  administration  of  a  church,  to  be<br \/>\nprecise,  a  Catholic  Church,  by  name, St.Mary Magdalin Church situate in a<br \/>\nvillage called, Vakkampatti in Dindigul taluk is the  subject  matter  of  the<br \/>\nappeal.   There is no dispute regarding the exercise of spiritual power of the<br \/>\nchurch by Papacy through its local representatives,  the  Episcopate  and  the<br \/>\nlocal  Parish  Priest as the plaintiffs have conceded that the spiritual power<br \/>\nshould be exercised by the Parish Priest of the Church.  The question is  only<br \/>\nwith reference to the temporal or administrative power over the Church and the<br \/>\nexercise of the said administrative power.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.   The  plaintiffs,  who  are  the appellants in the Letters<br \/>\nPatent Appeal, have instituted the suit for declaration that the  suit  Church<br \/>\nand  the  suit  properties belong to the entire Catholic public of Vakkampatti<br \/>\nvillage with consequential injunction restraining the defendants 2 to  4  from<br \/>\ninterfering  with the management and administration of the suit Church and its<br \/>\nproperties by the  plaintiffs  as  trustees  and  for  removal  of  the  first<br \/>\ndefendant  from  trusteeship  and for directing the first defendant to deliver<br \/>\nthe management of the Church and its properties to the plaintiffs and also for<br \/>\ncertain other reliefs.  The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs as  trustees<br \/>\nof  the  church  and  as representatives of the Catholic Public of Vakkampatti<br \/>\nvillage.  Though a point was raised whether the suit is  maintainable  without<br \/>\nobtaining  the  leave under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we find<br \/>\nthat necessary prior permission to institute the suit has been obtained by the<br \/>\nplaintiffs in the trial Court itself before the institution of the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  The case of the plaintiffs is that  the  suit  Church  was<br \/>\nconstructed  in  a Village Natham more than 200 years prior to the institution<br \/>\nof the suit by the Catholic public of Vakkampatti by collecting donations  and<br \/>\ntaxes  from  the  public and by contributing their physical labour and on this<br \/>\nfact, there is no dispute between the parties.  It is pleaded that the  Church<br \/>\nwas  constructed  by  the  entire  Catholic  public  under  the supervision of<br \/>\nNattanmais and Periyathanams of the said village.  It is stated in the  plaint<br \/>\nthat  for  the  proper  administration  of  the  church  and its properties, a<br \/>\nCommittee of five members headed by the Nattanmai,  C.Savarimuthu,  father  of<br \/>\nthe  first plaintiff was formed 90 years prior to the institution of the suit.<br \/>\nIt is also stated that though a Parish Priest was there,  he  never  exercised<br \/>\nany right,  ownership  or control over the Church at any point of time.  It is<br \/>\nfurther stated that for the administration and management of  the  church  and<br \/>\nits properties, out of the five members of the Committee, three were appointed<br \/>\nby public  and  the office of trusteeship has been made hereditary.  (However,<br \/>\nthe plaint does not disclose how those three persons elected by the public can<br \/>\nhold the office hereditarily.  The plaint does not also disclose how the other<br \/>\ntwo members were appointed.  The evidence of  P.W.1  also  does  not  disclose<br \/>\nanything about the mode of appointment of other two members of the Committee).<br \/>\nIt  is the case of the plaintiffs that during the long and continuous usage of<br \/>\nthe institution, the management vested in the trustees of  the  Committee  and<br \/>\nthe  period of management of the Managing Trustee is stated to be one year and<br \/>\nthe change in management of the Managing Trustee was coincident to the  Church<br \/>\nfestival held  in the month of June, every year.  It is stated that at the end<br \/>\nof the Festival, the amount collected for the festival would be shown  to  the<br \/>\npublic  in  a  General  Body  Meeting  and  accounts would be approved and the<br \/>\nbalance amount would be shared by the trustees.  It is  stated  that  the  two<br \/>\nplaintiffs  and  the  first  defendant  are the three trustees and they are in<br \/>\nmanagement of the Church and its properties.  It is their case that the  first<br \/>\nplaintiff  has spent a sum of Rs.40,000\/- for the construction of a portion of<br \/>\nthe Church and he has to get reimbursement of  the  said  sum  and  the  first<br \/>\ndefendant also  agreed  for  the same.  According to the plaintiffs, the first<br \/>\ndefendant who is one of the trustees, is not maintaining a  true  and  correct<br \/>\naccount  of the income and expenditure of the Church and its properties and he<br \/>\nis misappropriating the income from the Church and its properties.   The  case<br \/>\nof  the plaintiffs is that the first defendant has been making arrangements to<br \/>\ntransfer the Church and its properties to the Arch Bishop of  Trichy  Diocese,<br \/>\nthe fourth  defendant  in the suit.  It is stated that the fourth defendant is<br \/>\nsuperior to the defendants 2 and 3 and the defendants 2 and 3  have  been,  in<br \/>\nthe ordinary  course,  acting on the instructions of the fourth defendant.  It<br \/>\nis stated that the first defendant  has  no  right  to  execute  any  document<br \/>\ntransferring the right or title of the Church and its properties to anybody as<br \/>\nthey  belong  to the entire Catholic public of Vakkampatti village, nor he has<br \/>\nthe power or authority to make any encumbrance over the properties without the<br \/>\nconsent  and  permission  of  other  trustees  and  the  Catholic  public   of<br \/>\nVakkampatti village.    It  is  stated that the management has been throughout<br \/>\nwith the trustees by inheritance and by rotation  among  themselves.    It  is<br \/>\nstated that the defendants 2 to 4 have no right to conduct the festival of the<br \/>\nChurch.   Hence,  the  plaintiffs,  as  trustees  of  the  Church  as  well as<br \/>\nrepresentatives of the Catholic public of Vakkampatti village, have filed  the<br \/>\nsuit for necessary declaration and injunction as set out earlier.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   The first defendant has filed a written statement denying<br \/>\nall the averments and the case of the first defendant is that  the  plaintiffs<br \/>\nare  not  the  trustees  and  after the consecration of the Church by the Arch<br \/>\nBishop of Trichy Diocese in the year 1902, the Church, its properties and  the<br \/>\nmanagement  of the Church were left to the control of the Bishop and the first<br \/>\ndefendant has been in the management of the Church only as a Manager  and  the<br \/>\nplaintiffs has  only  acted  as  his  Secretaries sometimes.  According to the<br \/>\nfirst defendant, he was only the manager of the Church and its properties  and<br \/>\nno trustees  have  been  appointed.  It is his specific case that the control,<br \/>\nmanagement and maintenance of the Church have been under the  control  of  the<br \/>\ndefendants 2  to  4.   It is stated that the festival would be conducted under<br \/>\nthe control of the Bishop in the month of July every year and  the  plaintiffs<br \/>\nare not  trustees.    It  is  the  case  of  the  defendants that the property<br \/>\ndescribed as item No.2 in A-schedule belonged to the first  defendant  and  he<br \/>\nsold  the same to the fourth defendant and it is not a property of the Church.<br \/>\nIt is stated that the plaintiffs have no right over the properties.  His  case<br \/>\nis  that he is only in management of the Church and the defendants 2 and 3 are<br \/>\nhaving the legal rights to manage the Church and to perform the festivals.  It<br \/>\nis stated that the plaintiffs are not entitled to  any  decree  directing  the<br \/>\nfirst  defendant  to hand over the management of the Church and its properties<br \/>\nand call for its accounts.  He also denied that the plaintiffs are entitled to<br \/>\nother reliefs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   The  second  defendant  has  filed  a  separate   written<br \/>\nstatement  stating that the Church was consecrated and dedicated to worship of<br \/>\nthe general public.  It is his case that the ancestors of the first  defendant<br \/>\nwere  allowed  to  manage the affairs of the Church by the Church authorities.<br \/>\nIt is stated that the representatives of the Arch  Bishop  of  Trichy  Diocese<br \/>\nused  to  perform  the religious part of the festivals and ceremonies and holy<br \/>\nmasses.  It is stated that the  festivals  were  celebrated  with  the  moneys<br \/>\ncollected  from  the public and if any surplus money was available, that would<br \/>\nbe credited to the second defendant and the surplus money was never shared  by<br \/>\nanybody.   It  is  his  case  that  the  entire  Catholic  community people of<br \/>\nVakkampatti village admit and acknowledge the rights of the defendants 2 to  4<br \/>\nover the  Church.  It is stated that the second defendant is in management and<br \/>\ncontrol of the Church.  According to the second defendant, the religious  part<br \/>\nof  the  festival  must  be  performed only by an ordained Priest and the suit<br \/>\nChurch belongs to the defendants 2 to 4 and  the  people  of  Vakkampatti  are<br \/>\nentitled to the right of worship.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  It is, on the above pleadings necessary issues were framed<br \/>\nand  evidence  has been let in, and the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed<br \/>\nfor.  An appeal was preferred against the judgment and  decree  of  the  trial<br \/>\nCourt.   A  learned Single Judge of this Court, by an elaborate judgment, held<br \/>\nthat the first defendant was carrying on the  secular  administration  of  the<br \/>\nChurch  as  Manager, assisted by the plaintiffs, who are called, Nattanmaidars<br \/>\nand the plaintiffs have no right  in  the  secular  administration  either  as<br \/>\nKariasthars or Nattanmaidars and hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the<br \/>\ndeclaration  that  the  suit  Church  and  its properties belong to the entire<br \/>\nCatholic public of Vakkampatty village.  Learned Single Judge also  considered<br \/>\nother  matters and held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to other reliefs,<br \/>\nand allowed the appeal preferred  by  the  defendants.    It  is  against  the<br \/>\njudgment  and  decree of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been<br \/>\npreferred.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  There is no dispute and it is seen from  the  evidence  of<br \/>\nP.Ws.1 and 2 that the suit church was constructed 200 years ago with the funds<br \/>\nraised  from the public and some additional construction has also been made by<br \/>\ngetting contributions not only from the Catholic public of  the  village,  but<br \/>\nalso from the Hindus and one Chinnasami Nadar had donated stones and borne the<br \/>\nexpenditure for  laying  the stones in the church premises.  It is also not in<br \/>\ndispute that the church is situate in Government Poramboke land.    The  first<br \/>\ndefendant,  in his evidence, has also admitted that the church was constructed<br \/>\nby collecting donations from the general public of the village and there is no<br \/>\ndifficulty in holding that the  church  has  been  constructed  in  Government<br \/>\nPoramboke  land  with the funds raised from the general public and mostly from<br \/>\nthe catholics belonging to the village.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  The appellants filed C.M.P.No.1434 of 2003 to receive  the<br \/>\ndocument,  namely,  copy of the order of the Bishop of Trichy showing that the<br \/>\nchurch was consecrated in  the  year  1902  itself.    There  are  no  serious<br \/>\nobjections to receive the document, and by taking the document on file, no new<br \/>\npoint  is  sought  to  be  introduced, but, on the other hand, the document is<br \/>\ntaken on file in  proof  of  an  already  existing  fact.    The  petition  in<br \/>\nC.M.P.No.1434  of 2003 is ordered and the document is marked as Ex.B-16 on the<br \/>\ndefendants&#8217; side.  The additional document filed by  the  defendants  in  this<br \/>\nappeal,  Ex.B-16 also shows that the church was consecrated by the Arch Bishop<br \/>\nof Trichy Diocese on 4 .3.1902 and the Parish Priest  signed  the  declaration<br \/>\nand as such, it is a consecrated church.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.   We  have  already  noted that in so far as ecclesiastical<br \/>\njurisdiction or religious functions and ceremonies  to  be  performed  in  the<br \/>\nchurch  in  question  are  concerned, there is no dispute that they are looked<br \/>\nafter by the Parish Priest who is under the control  and  supervision  of  the<br \/>\nArch Bishop  of  Trichy Diocese.  The first plaintiff in his evidence as P.W.1<br \/>\nadmitted that in so far  as  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the  church  is<br \/>\nconcerned,  it  is  vested with the defendants 2 and 3, and in view of his own<br \/>\ncategorical admission, the plaintiffs have no  right  to  have  a  declaration<br \/>\nregarding the ecclesiastical or religious functions of the church.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.   As  far  as  secular  administration  of  the  church is<br \/>\nconcerned, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Canon Law.<br \/>\nCan.1214 defines the term, &#8216;church&#8217; to mean a  sacred  building  intended  for<br \/>\ndivine  worship,  to which the faithful have right of access for the exercise,<br \/>\nespecially the public exercise, of divine worship.  Can.1215 provides that  no<br \/>\nchurch  is to be built without the express and written consent of the diocesan<br \/>\nBishop and before granting the permission, the diocesan Bishop is required  to<br \/>\nconsult  the  council  of priests and the rectors of neighbouring churches and<br \/>\nthen, he is to decide that the new church can serve the good of souls and that<br \/>\nnecessary means will be available to build  the  church  and  to  provide  for<br \/>\ndivine worship.    Can.1217 provides that as soon as possible after completion<br \/>\nof the building the new  church  is  to  be  dedicated  or  at  least  blessed<br \/>\nfollowing  the  laws of the sacred liturgy and churches, especially cathedrals<br \/>\nand parish churches are to be dedicated by a solemn rite.   Can.1218  provides<br \/>\nthat  each  church  is  to  have  its  own  title and once the church has been<br \/>\ndedicated this title cannot be changed.  Can.12 1 9 provides that all acts  of<br \/>\ndivine worship may be carried on in a church which has been lawfully dedicated<br \/>\nor blessed, without prejudice to parochial rights.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  The Supreme  Court  in <a href=\"\/doc\/634316\/\">MOST REV.  P.M.A.  METROPOLITAN v.<br \/>\nMORAN MAR MARTHOMA<\/a> ( 1995 Supp.  (4) SCC 286) held as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>                &#8221;  A  church  is  formed  by  the  voluntary  association   of<br \/>\nindividuals.   And  the  churches  in  the  commonwealth  are  voluntary  body<br \/>\norganised on a consensual basis &#8211; their rights apart  from  statutes  will  be<br \/>\nprotected  by  the courts and their discipline enforced exactly as in the case<br \/>\nof any other voluntary body whose existence is legally recognised.  Therefore,<br \/>\nall religious bodies are regarded by courts of law in  the  same  position  in<br \/>\nrespect  of  the  protection  of  their rights and the sanction given to their<br \/>\nrespective organisations.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court held that the canons are principles of scriptural bases  for<br \/>\nthe religious practice to be observed in a church.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.   We  have  gone  through  the  Canon  Law  and  also  the<br \/>\nCommentaries on the Canon Law.  Can.1214 makes it clear that the faithful have<br \/>\nthe right of access to the church for  divine  worship.    The  submission  of<br \/>\nMr.T.R.   Mani,  learned  senior counsel is that the administrative control of<br \/>\nthe church remains with the Roman Catholic public of Vakkampatti  village  and<br \/>\nwe  are  of the view that the effect of accepting the said submission would be<br \/>\nthat there will be a possibility of dual authority in  the  administration  of<br \/>\nthe  church one on the religious matters and another on administrative matters<br \/>\nand the vesting of dual authority in a Roman Catholic Church would be contrary<br \/>\nto the Canon Law.  Further, we have seen the effect of consecration.  A sacred<br \/>\nbuilding would not become fit for worship immediately after  its  construction<br \/>\nand  only after the sacred building is dedicated or blessed following the laws<br \/>\nof the sacred liturgy, it would become fit for divine worship.   If  the  dual<br \/>\nauthority  is  recognised,  then a situation may arise that the church and its<br \/>\nproperties may be put to use by the person who constructed the church, not for<br \/>\nthe objects intended to be carried on in the church.  It may also  lead  to  a<br \/>\nsituation  that  there  may  be  transfer of property to third parties thereby<br \/>\nendangering the very existence of the church itself.  Can.1222  provides  that<br \/>\nif the church cannot be used for divine worship and there is no possibility of<br \/>\nits  being  restored,  the  diocesan  Bishop  may allow it to be used for some<br \/>\nsecular, but not unbecoming purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>                13.   A  reading  of  various  provisions  of  the  Canon  Law<br \/>\npostulates  that  a detailed procedure has been made for the administration of<br \/>\nthe church and its properties and so long as the church retains the status  of<br \/>\na Roman Catholic church, in our view, the diocesan Bishop alone would have the<br \/>\nright  in both the spiritual and the temporal matters in respect of the church<br \/>\nand its properties.  The church in question, by  its  very  nature,  has  been<br \/>\nconstructed  only  from  the  donations  made  mostly by the members following<br \/>\nChristian religion and from the fact of contribution for the  construction  of<br \/>\nthe  church  by  the  public,  it  does not mean that the properties should be<br \/>\ntransferred to the public  or  held  by  the  public.    When  a  building  is<br \/>\nconstructed  for  the purpose of divine worship, it would become a church only<br \/>\nafter the fulfilment of certain formalities prescribed in the  Canon  Law  and<br \/>\nthere  must be an express and written consent of the diocesan Bishop and there<br \/>\nmust be dedication or blessing following the law of sacred liturgy.    Once  a<br \/>\nsacred building becomes a church under the Canon Law, the faithful will have a<br \/>\nright of  access  for divine worship.  The Canon Law contemplates the complete<br \/>\nexistence of a church.\n<\/p>\n<p>                14.  The submission of Mr.T.R.Mani, learned senior counsel for<br \/>\nthe appellants is that the above canons do not touch the matters  relating  to<br \/>\nthe administrative control.  Learned senior counsel referred to can.1254 which<br \/>\nsays  that  a  catholic  church  has  the inherent right, independently of any<br \/>\nsecular power, to acquire, retain, administer and alienate temporal goods,  in<br \/>\npursuit of  its  proper  objectives.   Learned senior counsel also referred to<br \/>\ncan.1257 which provides that all temporal goods  belonging  to  the  universal<br \/>\nchurch,  to  the  Apostolic  See  or  to other public juridical persons in the<br \/>\nchurch, are ecclesiastical goods and are regulated by the canons which follow,<br \/>\nas well as by their own statutes.  He referred to sub-clause (2)  of  can.1257<br \/>\nand  submitted  that  the  sub-clause  provides  that  unless  it is otherwise<br \/>\nexpressly provided, temporal goods belonging to a private juridical person are<br \/>\nregulated by its own statutes, not by these canons, and  therefore  since  the<br \/>\nchurch  has  the  goods  belonging  to  private juridical persons, namely, the<br \/>\npublic of Vakkampatti village, the Canon Law cannot prevail.\n<\/p>\n<p>                15.  Chapter II of Title  VI  of  the  Canon  Law  deals  with<br \/>\njuridical  persons  and  can.116  provides  that  public juridical persons are<br \/>\naggregates of persons or of things which  are  established  by  the  competent<br \/>\necclesiastical  authority  so  that, within the limits allotted to them in the<br \/>\nname of the church, and in accordance with the provisions of law,  they  might<br \/>\nfulfil  the  specific  task  entrusted  to  them for the public good and other<br \/>\njuridical persons are private.  Sub-clause (2) of can.116 provides that public<br \/>\njuridical persons are given this personality either by the law itself or by  a<br \/>\nspecial  decree  of  the  competent  authority  expressly  granting it and the<br \/>\nprivate juridical persons are given this personality only by a special  decree<br \/>\nof the  competent  authority  expressly  granting it.  In other words, private<br \/>\njuridical persons are given the juridical personality not by law, but only  by<br \/>\na special  decree of the competent authority expressly granting it.  Subclause<br \/>\n(3) of Can.114 provides that the competent ecclesiastical authority is not  to<br \/>\nconfer  juridical  personality  except  on  those  aggregates of persons or of<br \/>\nthings which  aim  at  a  genuinely  useful  purpose  and  which,  all  things<br \/>\nconsidered,  have the means which are foreseen to be sufficient to achieve the<br \/>\npurpose in view.  Therefore, the submission of  the  learned  senior  counsel,<br \/>\nMr.T.R.Mani  that  with  regard  to  the  temporal  goods belonging to private<br \/>\njuridical persons, the Canon Law cannot prevail  is  not  acceptable,  as  the<br \/>\nexpression,  &#8216;private juridical person&#8217; in Canon Law has a significant meaning<br \/>\nand to regard a group of persons as private juridical persons,  the  juridical<br \/>\npersonality  should  be given that status by a special decree of the competent<br \/>\nauthority expressly granting it.  Learned  senior  counsel  also  referred  to<br \/>\nother provisions of the Canon Law.\n<\/p>\n<p>                16.   Before  considering  the  effect of the Canon Law, it is<br \/>\nnecessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/634316\/\">MOST REV.    P.M.A.<br \/>\nMETROPOLITAN v.  MORAN  MAR MARTHOMA<\/a> (1995 Supp.  (4) S.C.C.  286) wherein the<br \/>\nSupreme Court explained the Canon law.   After  considering  the  Black&#8217;s  Law<br \/>\nDictionary and the Encyclopaedia of Religion, it held as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>                &#8221; Canon is explained in Black&#8217;s Law Dictionary as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>                &#8216;A  law,  rule  or  ordinance in general, and of the church in<br \/>\nparticular.  An ecclesiastical  law  or  statute.    A  rule  of  doctrine  or<br \/>\ndiscipline.  A  criterion  or  standard  of  judgment.   A body of principles,<br \/>\nstandards, rules, or norms&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>Canon means both a norm and attribute of the scripture.  The term &#8216; canon law&#8217;<br \/>\nis explained in the Encyclopaedia of Religion, Vol.3, as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8216;The term canon  is  based  on  the  Greek  word  Kanon.    Originally<br \/>\nsignifying  a  straight rod or bar, especially one used to keep something else<br \/>\nstraight, canon came to mean something that is fixed, a rule  or  norm.    The<br \/>\nterm has  several  applications  in  church usage:  the canon of scripture, or<br \/>\nthat fixed list of books that are determined to belong a sacred scripture; the<br \/>\ncanon of the Mass, the fixed portion of the eucharistic prayer; the process of<br \/>\ndeclaring a deceased person to be among the fixed list of saints in heaven, or<br \/>\ncanonisation.  From the third century, directives for church living and  norms<br \/>\nfor church structures and procedures have been issued as canons.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Canon law  refers  to  the  law  internal to the church.  In the early<br \/>\ncenturies of Christianity, canon  was  used  for  internal  church  norms,  to<br \/>\ndistinguish them  from  the  imperial  nomos (leges in Latin) or laws.  Church<br \/>\nnorms have also been known as sacred or divine, to distinguish them from civil<br \/>\nor human laws.  At times they are referred to as the &#8216;sacred  canons&#8217;  or  the<br \/>\n&#8216;canonical order&#8217;.    The  term  ecclesiastical  law is used synonymously with<br \/>\ncanon law, although at times ecclesiastical law also refers to the  civil  law<br \/>\nadopted in  various nations to regulate church affairs.  The term canon law is<br \/>\nused in the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox communions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Canon law is drawn from sources  in  scripture,  custom,  and  various<br \/>\ndecisions of  church  bodies  and  individual  church  authorities.   Over the<br \/>\ncenturies these have been gathered in a variety of collections that  serve  as<br \/>\nthe law books for various churches.&#8217;\n<\/p>\n<p>                55.   Canons  are  thus the principal scriptural bases for the<br \/>\nreligious practices observed in a Church.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                17.  The  Supreme  Court  in  the  same  case  considered  the<br \/>\nwell-marked distinction between the episcopal church and congregational church<br \/>\nand held as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>                &#8220;A Church is either episcopal or congregational.  It cannot be<br \/>\nepiscopal in  spiritual  matters and congregational in temporal matters.  That<br \/>\nwould be against the basic characteristic of such  a  Church.    It  would  be<br \/>\nagainst specific  provisions  in  the  Constitution.   The temporal matters or<br \/>\nadministration  of  churches  flows  from  its  establishment  for   religious<br \/>\npurposes, namely,  &#8216;the  cure of souls&#8217;.  Where a building is consecrated as a<br \/>\nChurch, &#8216;it continues to exist in the eye of law as  a  church  and  the  body<br \/>\ncorporate which had been endowed in respect of it remains in possession of the<br \/>\nendowment even  though  the  material  building  is  destroyed&#8217;.  Every Parish<br \/>\nChurch of Malankara acknowledges the Patriarch of  Antioch  as  the  spiritual<br \/>\nhead.  They   have  been  paying  Ressissa  to  Patriarch.    The  ordination,<br \/>\nconsecration and every spiritual or temporal power has always  been  exercised<br \/>\nby  the  Patriarch of Antioch so long it was not decided on basis of the Synod<br \/>\nheld at Mulunthuruthy that the Patriarch was only the spiritual head  and  the<br \/>\ntemporary powers vested in the Metropolitan.  This division of power could not<br \/>\ndestroy the basic characteristic of episcopacy.  The Church in England is also<br \/>\nan episcopal  church.    In  Halsbury&#8217;s Laws of England, vol.14, para 562, the<br \/>\nright of parishioners has been described &#8216;to enter the  church,  remain  there<br \/>\nfor  purpose of participating in divine worship to have a seat and to obey the<br \/>\nreasonable directions of the church to ordain&#8217;.  The  property  vests  in  the<br \/>\nendowment.    That   is  the  fundamental  difference  in  congregational  and<br \/>\nepiscopal.  In the former it vests in the parishioner.  But in the  latter  in<br \/>\nendowment.   Once  it  is  conceded  that the Syrian Churches are episcopal in<\/p>\n<p>character then the distinction  between  spiritual  and  temporary  is  of  no<br \/>\nconsequence.  Therefore, the property of the Church vests in the endowment and<br \/>\nnot the parishioners.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                18.   A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr.Sadasiva<br \/>\nAyyar and Mr.Napier, JJ., as early as in the year 1915, in MICHAEL  PILLAI  v.<br \/>\nRT.REV.  BARTLE (39 ILR (Mad.)1056) held as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>                &#8220;According  to  Canon  Law a Roman Catholic Church becomes, as<br \/>\nsoon  as  it  is  consecrated,  the  property  of  the   church   authorities,<br \/>\nirrespective  of  the  fact  that  any  particular  worshipper  or worshippers<br \/>\ncontributed to its construction.  (underline supplied)<br \/>\n                The Bishop and other church  authorities  have  the  exclusive<br \/>\nright to the internal management of the church, whether relating to secular or<br \/>\nreligious  matters,  such  as accommodating the congregation inside the church<br \/>\nand prescribing the part to be taken by the congregation in the  services  and<br \/>\nthe ceremonies.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Though  the  above case dealt with the question of custom prevailing among the<br \/>\nRoman Catholic people, this Court held that where a certain section  of  Roman<br \/>\nCatholic  converts of a place claimed an exclusive right to sit in and worship<br \/>\nin a particular portion of the church during time of the service and  to  take<br \/>\npart  in  certain  duties connected with the church services, such a claim was<br \/>\nheld to be legally unsustainable.  It was held that as soon  as  a  Church  is<br \/>\nconsecrated,  the  church  becomes the property of the Bishop and other church<br \/>\nauthorities irrespective  of  the  fact  that  any  particular  worshipper  or<br \/>\nworshippers contributed to the construction of the church.\n<\/p>\n<p>                19.   Another  Division  Bench  of  this  Court  consisting of<br \/>\nMr.Ayling and Mr.Coutts Trotter,JJ., in <a href=\"\/doc\/295640\/\">GASPARI LOUIS v.   GONSALVES<\/a>  (35  MLJ\n<\/p>\n<p>407)  held that if a person voluntarily joins in a particular association, the<br \/>\nperson would be bound by the rules which have been  framed  for  the  internal<br \/>\ndiscipline and for the management of its affairs.  The Court held as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>                &#8220;We may say at once that we think any analogies drawn from the<br \/>\ndecisions  relating  to the property of the English Established Church are not<br \/>\nreally applicable to the present case.  The  Church  of  England  is  properly<br \/>\ndescribed  as &#8216;established&#8217; just because of this unique feature about it, that<br \/>\nit is subjected to the ordinary courts of law not only as to matters  temporal<br \/>\nbut even  as  to  matters of doctrine.  This is due to a variety of historical<br \/>\ncauses which need not now be examined.  The Roman Catholic Church  is  not  an<br \/>\nEstablished Church.  It is what is described as a voluntary association in the<br \/>\nEnglish  cases;  and the result of those cases of which the most important are<br \/>\nLong v.  The Bishop of Cape Town (1863) 1 Moo.  P.C.(N.S.)411) and Merriman v.<br \/>\nWilliams (1882) L.R.7 A.C.484) seems to be this:   If  you  join  a  voluntary<br \/>\nassociation  you  will  be  bound  by  any  rules  which it had framed for its<br \/>\ninternal discipline and for the management of tis affairs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                20.  Mr.T.R.Mani,  learned  senior  counsel  referred  to  the<br \/>\ndecision  of  another  Bench  of this Court, presided over by Sir Alfred Henry<br \/>\nLionel Leach, C.J., in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/977912\/\">ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP  OF  TRICHINOPOLY  v.<br \/>\nAMIRTHASWAMI PILLAI<\/a>  (1944  (I) MLJ 157).  The facts of that case are, a Roman<br \/>\nCatholic Church was constructed  in  the  place  called,  Varaganery  and  was<br \/>\ndedicated  for  the religious worship in accordance with Roman Catholic rites.<br \/>\nIt was also found as fact that the church was built by the Roman Catholics  of<br \/>\nVellala community and it was used by all Roman Catholics as being dedicated to<br \/>\nthe general  public  of Roman Catholics.  A dispute arose when minority of the<br \/>\nVellala community obtained possession of the church and  arranged  for  masses<br \/>\naccording to  the  rites of the Syrian church.  Other Vellala community people<br \/>\nfiled a suit and when the matter came up before this  Court  on  appeal,  this<br \/>\nCourt  held  that  the  minority  or  even  the  majority of the Vellala Roman<br \/>\nCatholics of Varaganeri would not be allowed to use  the  church  for  worship<br \/>\nwhich is not in accordance with the Roman Catholic ritual and therefore, could<br \/>\nnot  be allowed to introduce therein priests of another Church for the purpose<br \/>\nof conducting worship.  The Court held that the plaintiffs in the  suit  which<br \/>\nwas   filed   in  the  representative  capacity  are  entitled  to  injunction<br \/>\nrestraining the defendants and  their  adherents  from  interfering  with  the<br \/>\nChurch and  the  conduct  of  the religious services held therein.  The Court,<br \/>\nwhile granting injunction, also directed for the handing over of possession of<br \/>\nthe church to the representatives of Roman Catholics  of  Varaganeri  village,<br \/>\nsubject to the spiritual authority of the Bishop of Trichinopoly.\n<\/p>\n<p>                21.  Placing reliance on the above decision, T.R.Mani, learned<br \/>\nsenior  counsel submitted that this Court has held that a particular community<br \/>\npeople residing in a particular place were held to be entitled  to  possession<br \/>\nand  the  administration of the church and its properties and the same analogy<br \/>\nshould be  extended  to  the  plaintiffs  who  have  filed  the  suit  in  the<br \/>\nrepresentative  capacity  of  the Roman Catholic public of Vakkampatti village<br \/>\nfor declaration that the suit church and its properties belong to  the  entire<br \/>\nCatholic public  of  Vakkampatti  village.    Learned senior counsel therefore<br \/>\nsubmitted that in so far as secular administration of the church is concerned,<br \/>\nit vests in the Roman Catholic public of Vakkampatti village.\n<\/p>\n<p>                22.  We are unable to accept the submission of Mr.T.R.   Mani,<br \/>\nlearned senior  counsel  for  more  than one reason.  Firstly, in Amirthaswami<br \/>\nPillai&#8217;s case (1944 (1) MLJ 157) this  Court  was  considering  the  religious<br \/>\naspects of the matter and the question arose when the church was taken over by<br \/>\nminority community people, and whether it was necessary to issue any direction<br \/>\nfor  the  handing  over  the possession of the church to the plaintiffs in the<br \/>\nsuit.  Secondly, the facts of that case make it clear that the church was  not<br \/>\nconsecrated,  but  only  dedicated in accordance with the Roman Catholic rites<br \/>\nand it was found as a matter of fact and on the basis of subsequent  agreement<br \/>\nbetween  the  community  people  and the Bishop that the Bishop was authorised<br \/>\nonly to depute a priest for the  conduct  of  daily  masses  and  on  days  of<br \/>\nobligation and  for  the conduct of other religious services.  In other words,<br \/>\non the basis of settlement of dispute, the church was  dedicated  for  general<br \/>\npublic  of  Roman  Catholic  and  maintained  by  a committee of Vellala Roman<br \/>\nCatholics who had  control  over  it  for  that  purpose.    In  that  factual<br \/>\nsituation, this Court held that since the church was maintained by a committee<br \/>\nof  Vellala  Community people who had control over the church and its affairs,<br \/>\nthe possession should be handed over to the plaintiffs, the representatives of<br \/>\nthat community.  Therefore, the decision in Amirthaswami Pillai&#8217;s  case  (1944<br \/>\n(1) MLJ 1 57) hardly assists the case of the appellants herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>                23.   As observed by the Supreme Court in Moran Mar Marthoma&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase (1995 Supp.  (4) SCC 286), admittedly there are no separate  laws  framed<br \/>\nin  respect  of  the  church  in  question  and  the church is not governed by<br \/>\nstatutory laws.  As the Roman Catholic Church in question is governed  by  the<br \/>\nepiscopal  law,  the  jurisdiction  of  the Court would depend upon either the<br \/>\nstatute or the common law.\n<\/p>\n<p>                24.  The above decisions make it clear that the Canon Law  has<br \/>\nmade  some distinction between the spiritual and temporal powers of the Papacy<br \/>\nand the temporal powers of church vest in the Pope whose  authority  might  be<br \/>\ndelegated to  a  Bishop  to  the extent of a particular diocese.  Therefore we<br \/>\nhold that once the church in question was constructed  and  consecrated  by  a<br \/>\nArch Bishop of Trichy Diocese, the church and its properties would vest in the<br \/>\nPope  and  the  fourth  respondent,  Arch Bishop as a delegate of the Pope, is<br \/>\nentitled to the  spiritual  and  temporal  powers  over  the  church  and  its<br \/>\nproperties.   As  already observed, though the church was constructed with the<br \/>\nfunds mostly provided by the Roman Catholic  public  of  Vakkampatti  village,<br \/>\nwhen  the  church  was  consecrated according to the Roman Catholic rites, the<br \/>\nchurch and its properties would vest in the fourth respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>                25.  Can.1254 and 1257 make it clear that the catholic  church<br \/>\nhas the inherent right, independently of any secular power to acquire, retain,<br \/>\nadminister  and  alienate  temporal goods, in pursuit of its proper objectives<br \/>\nand all temporal goods would be regulated by the canons as well  as  by  their<br \/>\nown statutes.  Sub-clause (2) of Can.1257 provides that unless it is otherwise<br \/>\nexpressly provided, temporal goods belonging to a private juridical person are<br \/>\nregulated by  its  own  statutes,  not  by  these  canons.   Sub-clause (2) of<br \/>\ncan.1257 deals only with the temporal goods belonging to a  private  juridical<br \/>\nperson,  and  a  body  of Roman Catholic public in the village are not private<br \/>\njuridical persons within the meaning of Canon Law.\n<\/p>\n<p>                26.  It is, no doubt, true that it will be open to the  church<br \/>\nauthorities  and the Roman Catholic public of a particular village to regulate<br \/>\nor to enter into an agreement with the villagers as to  the  mode  of  control<br \/>\nover  the  church  and  its  properties  and  in  the absence of any agreement<br \/>\nproduced by the appellants herein, it must be held that  the  church  and  its<br \/>\nproperties  vest  only  in  the authority of the fourth respondent, viz., Arch<br \/>\nBishop of Trichy Diocese and the respondents 2 and 3 are the delegate  of  the<br \/>\nArch  Bishop  to exercise the spiritual and temporal powers over the church in<br \/>\nquestion and its properties.\n<\/p>\n<p>                27.  Mr.T.R.Mani, learned senior counsel  submitted  that  the<br \/>\nCanon  Law  cannot  bind  the  Roman  Catholic  people of Vakkampatti village.<br \/>\nLearned senior counsel referred to several dictionaries,  namely,  Pocket  Law<br \/>\nLexicon, Mozely &amp; Whiteley&#8217;s Law Dictionary, Whartons Law Lexicon, K.J.Aiyer&#8217;s<br \/>\nJudicial Dictionary,   Judicial   Dictionary   by   Justice   L.    P.Singh  &amp;<br \/>\nP.K.Majumdar,  The  Chambers  Dictionary,  Osborn&#8217;  Concise  Law   Dictionary,<br \/>\nDictionary  of  Law  by  L.B.Curzon  Barrister,  The  Code  of Canon Law and A<br \/>\ncommentary of New Code of Canon Law,  and  on  the  basis  of  the  above,  he<br \/>\nsubmitted that the Canon Law would only be binding the churches.\n<\/p>\n<p>                28.   We have gone through the various dictionary meanings and<br \/>\nsome text books on Canon Law.  The Supreme Court in Moran Mar Marthoma&#8217;s  case<br \/>\n(1995 Supp.    (4)  SCC 286) held that the canons are principles of scriptural<br \/>\nbases for the religious practice to be observed in a church.  We have  already<br \/>\nfound  that  the  church  is  a voluntary association and if any person of the<br \/>\nassociation desires to be a member or continues to be a member, he is bound by<br \/>\nthe rules framed for the association both in the matter of discipline and  the<br \/>\ninternal management  of the association.  Further, some of the passages relied<br \/>\nupon by  Mr.T.R.    Mani,  learned  senior  counsel  relate  to  the   English<br \/>\nestablished churches.   It is found that a church of England is an established<br \/>\nchurch because of its unique features about it, that it is  subjected  to  the<br \/>\nordinary  courts of law not only to matters temporal but even as to matters of<br \/>\ndoctrine and this is due to variety of historical reasons  and  therefore,  it<br \/>\nwould  not  be  profitable to apply the principles relating to the established<br \/>\nchurches to the Roman Catholic churches which are governed by their own rules.<br \/>\nTherefore, on the basis of the law, particularly, the law governing the church<br \/>\nin question, we hold that the church and  its  properties  vest  only  in  the<br \/>\nfourth  respondent  herein and it is open to him to exercise his power through<br \/>\nhis delegates, namely, respondents 2 and 3.  It is true that it would be  open<br \/>\nto  the  fourth  respondent  to  authorise villagers to administer the secular<br \/>\naffairs of the church, but the plaintiffs have not established that they  were<br \/>\nauthorised  by  the fourth respondent to administer the secular affairs of the<br \/>\nchurch and even if there were so authorised, they would exercise the power  of<br \/>\nadministration  as  authorised  agents of the fourth defendant and not de hors<br \/>\nthe authorisation.  Equally, it would have been open to the villagers to  form<br \/>\na  trust  to  retain  the  administrative  control  over  the  church  and its<br \/>\nproperties at the time of consecration of  church  subject  to  the  grant  of<br \/>\nconsent by the fourth respondent for retaining such a control.\n<\/p>\n<p>                29.   We are also conscious of the fact that when we have held<br \/>\nthat the church has vested with the fourth respondent, it does  not  mean  the<br \/>\nvesting of property in a person in the normal sense.  We meant that so long as<br \/>\nthe  authority of the fourth respondent continues over the catholic church and<br \/>\nits properties, the church  and  its  properties  would  vest  in  the  fourth<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>                30.   It  is, no doubt, true that it is open to the plaintiffs<br \/>\nto show that notwithstanding the provisions of the  Canon  Law,  the  temporal<br \/>\naffairs  of  the church are being governed by the custom of the Roman Catholic<br \/>\npublic of Vakkampatti village.  If the custom is established, then, the  Roman<br \/>\nCatholic people of Vakkampatti village can claim right over the church and its<br \/>\nproperties by  way  of  custom.    To decide this question, it is necessary to<br \/>\nrefer to the averments made in the plaint wherein it is stated that the church<br \/>\nis owned by the entire public and the church is open to worship  for  all  and<br \/>\nfor  the  administration  of  the  church  and  its  properties donated by the<br \/>\nCatholics, a committee of five members headed by Nattammai, the father of  the<br \/>\nfirst plaintiff  was  formed  about  90 years ago.  It is also the case of the<br \/>\nplaintiffs that the Parish Priest has exercised no right over the  functioning<br \/>\nof  the trust and the entire management of the trust and the properties vested<br \/>\nin the five members of the committee of whom, three trustees were appointed by<br \/>\nthe public and their office is hereditary in nature.  We have already observed<br \/>\nthat if the three members were appointed by the public and the term  of  their<br \/>\noffice  is one year, it is not hereditary in nature as the concept of election<br \/>\nis antithesis to the devolution of rights hereditarily.  We have also observed<br \/>\nthat though the plaintiffs have claimed that there are five members and out of<br \/>\nthem, three were elected by the public, but, the plaint is  completely  silent<br \/>\nas  to  the  appointment  or  mode  of  devolution of trusteeship of other two<br \/>\ntrustees.  It is also stated that the plaintiffs and the first  defendant  are<br \/>\nthe three  trustees who have managed the church and its properties.  According<br \/>\nto the plaint, for conducting annual festival the  committee  collected  money<br \/>\nand  after  the  festival  was  over,  the  accounts would be approved and the<br \/>\nbalance amount would be shared by the three trustees.\n<\/p>\n<p>                31.  Mr.T.R.Mani,  learned  senior  counsel  referred  to  the<br \/>\nrelevant portions of the written statements as also the evidence of P.Ws.1 and<br \/>\n2  and  D.Ws.1 to 4 and submitted that the first defendant in his evidence has<br \/>\nadmitted that the management of the church was throughout in the hands of  the<br \/>\nmanager  and he has also admitted that the key for the church was with him and<br \/>\nhe was keeping the accounts of  the  church.    Learned  senior  counsel  also<br \/>\nreferred  to the evidence and submitted that the defendants 2 and 3 are not in<br \/>\nthe management of the church affairs and D.W.1 has admitted that the plaintiff<br \/>\nwas performing the functions as  Kariasthar  and  he  also  admitted  that  he<br \/>\n(D.W.1) handed over the management of the church to the defendants 2 to 4 only<br \/>\nafter  the  filing of the suit and only the religious part of the festival was<br \/>\ndone by the defendants 2 to 4 and the defendants 2 to 4  had  not  contributed<br \/>\nany funds for the construction of the church and the priests were not directly<br \/>\ninvolved  in  the  management  or  maintenance  of  the  church  and the first<br \/>\ndefendant&#8217;s family is looking after the affairs and  the  improvement  of  the<br \/>\nchurch.   Learned  senior counsel referred to the evidence of D.W.1 in extenso<br \/>\nand submitted that he has admitted that there is no permanent  priest  in  the<br \/>\nchurch and  sometimes, the festival was conducted without the priest.  Learned<br \/>\nsenior counsel referred to the evidence of D.W.2 and submitted that D.W.2  has<br \/>\nadmitted  that after the festival was over, the accounts would be shown to the<br \/>\npublic and the balance amount was credited to the accounts of the manager  and<br \/>\nhe has also admitted that the first plaintiff has collected the money from the<br \/>\npublic.   Learned  senior  counsel  submitted that the evidence of D.W.2 shows<br \/>\nthat the Priest and the Bishop are not directly managing the church.   He  has<br \/>\nalso  referred to the admission made by D.W.2 that the first plaintiff and the<br \/>\nfirst defendant were in the management of the church for the  past  30  to  40<br \/>\nyears.   He  referred to the evidence of D.W.3, the Parish Priest where he has<br \/>\nstated that the public used to bear the expenditure of the festival by way  of<br \/>\ndonations and he has admitted that there is no written record to show that the<br \/>\nchurch  belongs  to the defendants and he also admitted that the powers of the<br \/>\ndefendants 2 to 4 only relate to religious ceremonies.  Learned senior counsel<br \/>\nsubmitted that D.W.2 has stated that there is no written consent to  show  his<br \/>\npower to  manage the church.  He relied upon the admission of D.W.2 that he is<br \/>\nnot staying in Vakkampatti village and he referred to  Ex.B-15  and  submitted<br \/>\nthat  it  cannot  be  stated  that Vakkampatti village church comes within the<br \/>\nownership of the fourth defendant.  He also referred to the evidence of  D.W.4<br \/>\nwhere  he  has  admitted that secretaries and managers were conducting certain<br \/>\nfestivals and the first defendant&#8217;s father administered the church.   He  also<br \/>\nreferred  to  the evidence of D.w.4 and submitted that he has clearly admitted<br \/>\nthat the invitations for the festivals were printed only  by  the  secretaries<br \/>\nand managers and they would issue receipts for the annual collections.  On the<br \/>\nbasis  of  the  above pleadings and evidence, learned senior counsel submitted<br \/>\nthat the defendants have admitted that the administration of the church as far<br \/>\nas secular matters  are  concerned  is  with  the  Roman  Catholic  public  of<br \/>\nVakkampatti  village and the administration is carried on through the managers<br \/>\nand karisasthars.\n<\/p>\n<p>                32.   Mr.Peppin  Fernando,  learned  counsel  for  the   first<br \/>\nrespondent, on the other hand, referred to the evidence of the first plaintiff<br \/>\nwhere  he  has admitted that 90 years ago, his father appointed three trustees<br \/>\nand submitted that the suit was instituted in the year 1990 and  the  evidence<br \/>\nof  P.W.1  was  recorded  on  7.4.1994 and if 90 years is calculated from that<br \/>\ndate, that would be 1904 in which year the father of the first plaintiff  must<br \/>\nbe aged  7 years.  He further referred to the evidence of P.W.1 wherein he has<br \/>\nstated that his father C.    Savarimuthu  and  the  first  defendant&#8217;s  father<br \/>\nK.S.Maria  Santhanam and the second plaintiff&#8217;s father, A.Savarimuthu were the<br \/>\nsaid trustees and submitted that the second plaintiff&#8217;s  father  A.Savarimuthu<br \/>\nwas not  even  born  on  that date.  He also referred to the evidence of P.W.1<br \/>\nwhere he has stated that after the  performance  of  festival,  the  remaining<br \/>\namount  would  be  divided into three parts and P.W.1 would take one share and<br \/>\nsubmitted that the above evidence clearly shows that the plaintiffs have  come<br \/>\nforward  with  a false case, and according to him, it is impermissible for the<br \/>\ntrustees to take the surplus money collected for the church.  He also referred<br \/>\nto the evidence of P.W.1 wherein he has stated that  either  in  the  festival<br \/>\nnotices  or  in  any  other document he was not shown as a trustee and he also<br \/>\nadmitted that trustee means manager and submitted that  his  evidence  clearly<br \/>\ndiscloses that the first plaintiff is not a trustee and his ancestors were not<br \/>\ntrustees at  all.  Learned counsel referred to the admission made by the first<br \/>\nplaintiff that the Parish Priest is residing  in  the  church  and  the  first<br \/>\ndefendant is  his  own  brother-in-law.    He also referred to the evidence of<br \/>\nP.W.1 where he has admitted that he was only a kariyasthar.   Learned  counsel<br \/>\nsubmitted  that  the  first  plaintiff&#8217;s  name  was  not found in the exhibit,<br \/>\nnamely, the invitation printed  for  the  church  festival  and  there  is  no<br \/>\nevidence  to  show  his  management and there is no written proof to show that<br \/>\nthere was a committee of five members and when the system  of  appointment  of<br \/>\ntrustees was  introduced.    He  referred  to  the admission made by the first<br \/>\nplaintiff that he kept the accounts for 14 years and the second plaintiff also<br \/>\nlooked after the management and there are no accounts for the period when  the<br \/>\nmanagement  was  with  his  father and Rev.Father is the representative of the<br \/>\nArch Bishop.  He also referred to  the  evidence  of  P.W.2  that  the  second<br \/>\ndefendant  is  the  Priest  of  Panchampatti who would attend the festival and<br \/>\ncollect his fees and the first plaintiff has not effected improvements in  the<br \/>\nchurch funds.\n<\/p>\n<p>                33.  We have  gone  through  the  oral  evidence  as  well  as<br \/>\nrelevant documentary  evidence.    We  find  that the learned Single Judge has<br \/>\nanalysed the evidence in detail.  We also find that the admission of the first<br \/>\nplaintiff shows that he was not a trustee, nor was he a manager and the  first<br \/>\ndefendant was  the church manager.  The first defendant was the Church manager<br \/>\nand the evidence is that the first plaintiff assisted the Church manager.  The<br \/>\nplaintiffs are not able to establish that the secular  administration  of  the<br \/>\nchurch was handed over to the committee and there is absolutely no evidence to<br \/>\nshow  that  the  secular  administration  of the church was handed over to the<br \/>\ncommittee consisting of five trustees.  Further, there is no  proof  regarding<br \/>\nthe mode of election or selection of trustees or the mode of administration by<br \/>\nthe said  trustees.    The  first  plaintiff  himself  admitted  that he was a<br \/>\nnattanmaidar and he was not  conferred  with  any  right  to  do  the  secular<br \/>\nadministration of  the  church.    If  the  case  of  the  plaintiffs  that as<br \/>\nnattanmaidar the first plaintiff is entitled to the  management  is  accepted,<br \/>\nthen,  it is not open to him to file the suit in a representative capacity for<br \/>\nthe Roman Catholic public of Vakkampatti village.  The case of the  plaintiffs<br \/>\nis that the management of the church was with the committee consisting of five<br \/>\ntrustees is  not  established  by  any  acceptable  evidence.    The so-called<br \/>\nadmissions of D.Ws.1 to 4 do not advance the case of the plaintiffs  and  they<br \/>\nhave  not  admitted anywhere that the secular administration of the church was<br \/>\nwith the committee of trustees and their admission is only to the effect  that<br \/>\nthe  first  defendant  was acting as a manager and he was collecting money for<br \/>\nthe performance of the festival and after the performance of the festival, the<br \/>\nsurplus amount would be handed over to the church.  The above  admission  does<br \/>\nnot  mean that they have admitted that the secular administration was with the<br \/>\ncommittee of trustees.  The documents, namely, Exs.A1  to  10  show  that  the<br \/>\ninvitations were printed in the name of Rev.Father and the first defendant was<br \/>\nshown only  as  church manager and others were shown as nattanmaidars.  Though<br \/>\nin some of the invitations,  the  name  of  the  Priest  was  not  shown,  the<br \/>\ndocuments  Exs.A1 to A-10 do not establish that the plaintiffs as the trustees<br \/>\ntook part in the conduct of the church festivals.  On the other  hand,  it  is<br \/>\nclear   from   the  evidence  that  the  first  plaintiff  was  recognised  as<br \/>\nnattanmaidar.  In view of the clear admission  of  P.W.1  that  they  are  not<br \/>\ntrustees, not much reliance can be placed on Exs.A-1 to A-10.\n<\/p>\n<p>                34.   It  is also relevant to notice that the second plaintiff<br \/>\nwas not examined.  The other  witness  who  was  examined  is  P.W.2  and  his<br \/>\nevidence does  not  inspire  confidence  for the acceptance of the Court.  The<br \/>\nplaintiffs have not taken any steps to examine any one of  the  villagers  who<br \/>\nare  conversant with the affairs and management of the church to establish the<br \/>\ncase of the plaintiff that the secular administration of the church  was  with<br \/>\nthe committee of five.\n<\/p>\n<p>                35.  We have gone through the evidence of the first plaintiff,<br \/>\nwho was  examined as P.W.1.  As already observed by us, he has not proved that<br \/>\nthere was a committee of management headed by the managing  trustee  from  the<br \/>\npublic  and the administration and management of the church and its properties<br \/>\nwere done by five members of the committee of trustees and the  trustees  were<br \/>\nappointed  by  the  public  and  the  office  of the trustee was hereditary in<br \/>\nnature.  As a matter of fact, his evidence shows that he was not even shown as<br \/>\na trustee in the pamphlets printed in connection with the church festivals and<br \/>\nhe was shown only as a kariasthar.\n<\/p>\n<p>                36.  Mr.T.R.Mani,  learned  senior  counsel  relied  upon  the<br \/>\nfollowing statement made by D.W.1, &#8216;with the consent of the village public and<br \/>\nunder  the  orders  of the Bishop, my grandfather was in the management of the<br \/>\nchurch as manager&#8217;.  The statement, in our opinion, does not prove the case of<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs that there was a committee of management.    The  statement  of<br \/>\nD.W.1  means  that the first defendant&#8217;s grandfather was appointed as a Church<br \/>\nmanager under orders of the Bishop.  The statement  does  not  mean  that  the<br \/>\nvillagers  have  appointed  the grandfather of the first defendant as manager.<br \/>\nThe other statement made in the deposition of D.W.1, on which  heavy  reliance<br \/>\nwas  placed  by  the learned senior counsel, is &#8216;as the public could not unite<br \/>\nthemselves and perform the  management  of  this  church,  the  managers  were<br \/>\nappointed  90  years  ago, but they have been in the office in the capacity as<br \/>\nmanagers ancestrally&#8217;.  This statement also does not show that the public have<br \/>\nappointed the managers, and the statement has to be read  along  with  earlier<br \/>\nstatement  of D.W.1 where he has stated that the managers were appointed under<br \/>\norders of the Bishop.  Though D.W.1 has stated that the managers were  holding<br \/>\nthe office ancestrally, it does not mean that the the villagers of Vakkampatti<br \/>\nwere  in  the management of the church and its properties through the managers<br \/>\nand there is no such admission by the first defendant in his evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>                37.  Learned senior counsel also referred to the  evidence  of<br \/>\nD.W.2  where  he  has stated that the entire management of the church was with<br \/>\nthe manager only and the church belonged to the village public.  In our  view,<br \/>\nthe  above  statement  cannot be read in isolation and it has to be read along<br \/>\nwith  the  earlier  statements  where  he  has  stated  that  the  church  was<br \/>\nconstructed by the public.  He has not admitted that the entire administrative<br \/>\ncontrol over  the church was with the public of Vakkampatti village.  Further,<br \/>\nthe evidence of D.W.2 also shows that the management of the  church  was  with<br \/>\nthe  managers  and  the managers, as already observed by us, were appointed by<br \/>\nthe Bishop and not by the villagers.  Further, the averments in the plaint  as<br \/>\nwell  as  the  evidence  of P.W.1 are to the effect that the trustees would be<br \/>\ncollecting money from the public for  the  performance  of  festivals  of  the<br \/>\nchurch and  surplus  amount would be divided among the trustees.  If the above<br \/>\naverment as well as the evidence that the surplus money would be divided among<br \/>\nthe trustees is accepted, it would offend the provisions of the Trust Act  and<br \/>\nwould also go against the purpose for which the contributions were made by the<br \/>\npublic.  When moneys have been collected for a particular purpose and if there<br \/>\nis  any  surplus  after the expenditure, the surplus money should go either to<br \/>\nthe church or to  the  public  and  it  is  not  possible  to  appropriate  or<br \/>\nmisappropriate  the money collected from the public by the so-called trustees.<br \/>\nFurther, the suit has been filed  in  a  representative  capacity  and  it  is<br \/>\nsurprising to note that no one from the public in the village has come forward<br \/>\nto  support  the  case of the plaintiffs that the management of the church was<br \/>\nwith the committee of five trustees  of  whom  three  were  nominated  by  the<br \/>\nvillage public.    We  find  that  the  plaintiffs  have  miserably  failed to<br \/>\nestablish their case that the administration and management of the church  was<br \/>\nin the  hands  of the committee of trustees.  There is no proof to support the<br \/>\ncase pleaded by the plaintiffs.   Therefore  we  affirm  the  finding  of  the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge on this aspect that the suit church and its properties do<br \/>\nnot belong to the entire catholic public of Vakkampatti village.\n<\/p>\n<p>                38.   Exs.A-11  to  A-15  and  A-47, as noticed by the learned<br \/>\nSingle  Judge,  are  account  books  maintained  by  the  first  plaintiff  in<br \/>\nconnection with  the  affairs  of  the  suit  church  from  1976 to 1991.  The<br \/>\ndocuments disclose that the first defendant was managing the  affairs  of  the<br \/>\nchurch  only  as  Church manager and the documents do not establish that there<br \/>\nwas a committee of trustees which was managing the secular  administration  of<br \/>\nthe church.    We  affirm  the  finding  of  the learned Single Judge that the<br \/>\necclesiastical jurisdiction vests with the defendants 2 to 4, and  as  far  as<br \/>\nthe  secular  administration  of the church, namely, collecting donations from<br \/>\npublic, conducting festivals, administration of the properties of the  church,<br \/>\netc., is concerned, it shall be done only with the knowledge and permission of<br \/>\nthe Parish Priest.  We also hold that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim<br \/>\ninjunction against  the  defendants  2 to 4.  We also hold that the plaintiffs<br \/>\nare not entitled to  the  relief  of  removal  of  the  first  defendant  from<br \/>\ntrusteeship.   Equally,  the  plaintiffs  are not entitled for a direction for<br \/>\nrendition of accounts as the first defendant is not shown to be  appointed  by<br \/>\nthe village  public  as a trustee to manage the church and its properties.  On<br \/>\nthe other hand, the evidence shows that he has  been  appointed  as  a  Church<br \/>\nmanager  by  the  defendants  2  and  3  and therefore, the plaintiffs are not<br \/>\nentitled to seek direction for rendition of accounts from the first defendant,<br \/>\nnor are they entitled to claim that the first  defendant  should  deliver  the<br \/>\nmanagement of the church and its properties to the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                39.   As  far  as  the second item in A-schedule properties is<br \/>\nconcerned, it consists of certain punja lands.  This  property,  according  to<br \/>\nthe plaint averments, was purchased in the name of one Kanagappan, grandfather<br \/>\nof  the first defendant and the family of the first defendant was enjoying the<br \/>\nproperty throughout from the date of purchase.  It is admitted that the  patta<br \/>\nin  respect  of  second  item  of  Aschedule  stood  in  the name of the first<br \/>\ndefendant after the death of his predecessors.  The plaintiffs claim  that  it<br \/>\nis  a  property belonging to the church and the church is in management of the<br \/>\nproperty, paying kist also out of the income of the church.  It is further the<br \/>\ncase of the plaintiffs that the property is intended for  due  performance  of<br \/>\nservice in the church and any alienation of the property would be invalid.\n<\/p>\n<p>                40.   In  the  written  statement  it has been stated that the<br \/>\nproperty described as item No.2 in A-schedule belonged to the  family  of  the<br \/>\nfirst  defendant  and  in  the  partition,  it  fell to the share of the first<br \/>\ndefendant and he sold the same to  the  fourth  defendant  by  document  dated<br \/>\n29.3.1993 (Ex.A-37).  According to the first defendant, it is not the property<br \/>\npurchased for the church and it is a private property of the first defendant&#8217;s<br \/>\nfamily.   As far as the evidence is concerned, the first plaintiff has stated,<br \/>\nin his evidence as P.W.1, that the patta for the land stood in the name of the<br \/>\nfirst defendant and he gifted the land belonging  to  him  in  favour  of  the<br \/>\nchurch.   He  has  also  admitted  that  the  property  was  purchased  by his<br \/>\ngrandfather for the church, but, there is no evidence of gift of the  property<br \/>\nby the  first  defendant&#8217;s grandfather to the Church.  The first defendant, in<br \/>\nhis evidence, has stated that the property did not belong to the church.    He<br \/>\nhas stated that  the  property  may  be  used for public purpose.  D.  W.2 has<br \/>\nstated that the property in item No.2 of  A-schedule  belonged  to  the  first<br \/>\ndefendant  and  the  first defendant sold the property to the fourth defendant<br \/>\nand the property belongs to the church.\n<\/p>\n<p>                41.  Learned senior counsel relied upon the admission made  by<br \/>\nthe  D.W.2  and  submitted  that  D.W.2  has  admitted that the second item in<br \/>\nAschedule belongs to the church.  We have seen Exs.A-49 and A-50.  Ex.A-49  is<br \/>\ndated  1.7.1889  and  Ex.A-50  is dated 11.10.1900 and both the documents were<br \/>\nexecuted in favour of Kanagappan, the grandfather of the first defendant.    A<br \/>\nreading  of  the documents does not show that the properties were purchased by<br \/>\nthe Church with the funds of the  church  or  from  the  public  money.    The<br \/>\npartition  deed  dated  3.5.1972 (Ex.B-5) in the family of the first defendant<br \/>\nshows that the said property was allotted to the first defendant in  the  said<br \/>\npartition.   Apart  from  the partition deed, the first defendant has produced<br \/>\nthe documents in Exs.B-6 and B-7 to show that the patta stood in the  name  of<br \/>\nthe  first  defendant  and he was paying the kist and he was in possession and<br \/>\nenjoyment of the property.  The first defendant has also produced evidence for<br \/>\npayment of tax and payment of electricity charges.  All the documents  clearly<br \/>\nshow  that  the  second  item  in  A-schedule,  namely, 27 cents is a property<br \/>\nbelonging to the family of the first  defendant.    The  plaintiffs  have  not<br \/>\nproved  that  the  said  property  was a property of the church, and they have<br \/>\nfailed to prove that the property was purchased by the Church out of  its  own<br \/>\nfunds or by the public of Vakkampatti village.\n<\/p>\n<p>                42.   Learned  counsel for the respondents referred to certain<br \/>\ndecisions on the question of benami.  We find that it is not the case  of  the<br \/>\nplaintiffs that the property was purchased by the Church benami in the name of<br \/>\nthe grandfather  of  the first defendant.  On the other hand, the way in which<br \/>\nthe first defendant&#8217;s family dealt with the property shows that it was treated<br \/>\nas a private property of the first defendant&#8217;s family and in  the  absence  of<br \/>\nany evidence to show that the said property is a church property, we hold that<br \/>\nthe  plaintiffs  are  not  entitled  for a declaration that the second item in<br \/>\nA-schedule properties of an extent of 27 cents belongs to the  church  or  the<br \/>\nvillage public.    Further,  it  is  relevant  to  mention here that the first<br \/>\ndefendant sold the property in favour of  the  fourth  defendant  by  document<br \/>\ndated 29.3.1993 (Ex.A-37).\n<\/p>\n<p>                43.   The suit was instituted in a representative capacity and<br \/>\nat the time when the plaintiffs filed the suit, the plaintiffs  did  not  seek<br \/>\nany relief  against  the fourth defendant.  Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed<br \/>\nan application seeking leave to sue against  the  fourth  defendant  and  that<br \/>\napplication was  dismissed.    Therefore,  it is not open to the plaintiffs to<br \/>\nquestion the deed of sale executed by the first defendant  in  favour  of  the<br \/>\nfourth  defendant,  as  the sale has become final and the leave to sue against<br \/>\nthe 4th defendant was rejected and the fourth defendant was exonerated.   Even<br \/>\non  this  ground  also, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any relief in<br \/>\nrespect of 2nd item in A-schedule properties  in  the  suit  instituted  in  a<br \/>\nrepresentative capacity.    In  the view we have taken, it is not necessary to<br \/>\ndiscuss the various decisions relied upon  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\nrespondents on  the  topic, benami.  Accordingly, we affirm the finding of the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge that the plaintiffs have failed  to  establish  that  the<br \/>\nsecond  item  in A-schedule properties was purchased by the Church from out of<br \/>\nthe church funds or by the public and therefore the claim  of  the  plaintiffs<br \/>\nthat the said property belongs to the church is not accepted and is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>                44.   As  far as B-schedule properties are concerned, not much<br \/>\nargument has been advanced before us.  It is seen from the evidence of  D.Ws.2<br \/>\nand  3  that the descriptions given in the plaint for Bschedule properties are<br \/>\nnot correct.  Further, for the performance of the ceremonies and  the  conduct<br \/>\nof  holy  masses  in  the  church, the vessels, ornaments and clothes would be<br \/>\nnecessary and it is  not  established  that  they  belong  to  the  public  of<br \/>\nVakkampatti village.    Therefore  the  claim of the plaintiffs that the first<br \/>\ndefendant is in possession of  Bschedule  properties  and  he  has  to  render<br \/>\naccounts for the same is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>                45.   The  plaintiffs  also  claimed  that the first defendant<br \/>\nshould be directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000\/- to the first plaintiff from and<br \/>\nout of the income of the suit church  as  the  sum  was  spent  by  the  first<br \/>\nplaintiff for effecting repairs, renovation and additional construction in the<br \/>\nchurch.   This  prayer is rejected as in a suit instituted in a representative<br \/>\ncapacity, it is  impermissible  for  the  first  plaintiff  to  vindicate  his<br \/>\nindividual  claim  that  the  sum  of Rs.40,000 \/- should be paid by the first<br \/>\ndefendant from and out of the church income.  Further, there is absolutely  no<br \/>\nevidence  to  show  that  the  first  plaintiff  has  carried out the repairs,<br \/>\nrenovation and additional construction in the Church.  He is not able even  to<br \/>\nsay  the year in which the amount was spent or when the construction was done.<br \/>\nThe plaintiff has not examined the contractor, nor even a coolie in support of<br \/>\nhis case that he had made some additional construction  in  the  Church.    In<br \/>\nother  words,  there  is no evidence for the expenditure incurred by the first<br \/>\nplaintiff for the construction and the entries in the account  books  produced<br \/>\nby the  plaintiffs  are  also not reliable.  There is also no evidence to show<br \/>\nthat the Priest or the first defendant permitted the first plaintiff to do the<br \/>\nrepair and other works in the Church with a promise  to  reimburse  the  same.<br \/>\nFurther, there is no evidence to show that the first plaintiff has spent money<br \/>\nand  hence,  the  individual  claim  of  the first plaintiff against the first<br \/>\ndefendant for payment of Rs.40,000\/- from and out  of  the  church  income  is<br \/>\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>                46.  We have already held that in the petition filed to permit<br \/>\nthe  plaintiffs  to  file  the  suit  in a representative capacity, the fourth<br \/>\ndefendant was exonerated and therefore the  plaintiffs  are  not  entitled  to<br \/>\nclaim  any  relief against the fourth defendant in the suit as the application<br \/>\nfiled seeking leave to sue against the fourth defendant was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                47.  The respondents 1 to 4 have preferred a cross  objection.<br \/>\nMr.   Peppin  Fernando,  learned counsel for the respondents did not press the<br \/>\ncross objection preferred.   Therefore,  the  cross  objection  fails  and  is<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                48.   Accordingly,  we  hold that the learned Single Judge was<br \/>\ncorrect in holding that the plaintiffs are not  entitled  to  the  reliefs  as<br \/>\nprayed  for  in  the  suit  and  the  learned Single Judge was also correct in<br \/>\ndismissing the suit.  Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal  fails  and  the<br \/>\nsame is dismissed.  The Cross Objection is also dismissed.  C.  M.P.No.1434 of<br \/>\n2003 is ordered.    C.M.P.Nos.10403  and  11741  of  1998  are closed.  In the<br \/>\ncircumstances, there will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nWebsite:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>na.\n<\/p>\n<p>Document marked in this appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>For respondents\/defendants:\n<\/p>\n<p>Ex.B-16 &#8230;  Copy of Order of Bishop of Trichirapalli<br \/>\n                (with English version)<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Additional Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nDindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Section Officer, V.R.Section,<br \/>\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court C.S.Robert vs M.Kanagappan on 29 April, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29\/04\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.JAYASIMHA BABU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN L.P.A.No.80 of 1998 and Cross Objection and C.M.P.Nos.10403 &amp; 11741 of 1998 &amp; 1434 of 2003 1. C.S.Robert 2. A.S.Arokiaraj Trustees and representatives of [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>C.S.Robert vs M.Kanagappan on 29 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.S.Robert vs M.Kanagappan on 29 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-19T22:44:08+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=\"54 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.S.Robert vs M.Kanagappan on 29 April, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-19T22:44:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003\"},\"wordCount\":10600,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003\",\"name\":\"C.S.Robert vs M.Kanagappan on 29 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-19T22:44:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.S.Robert vs M.Kanagappan on 29 April, 2003\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"C.S.Robert vs M.Kanagappan on 29 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.S.Robert vs M.Kanagappan on 29 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-19T22:44:08+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":"54 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.S.Robert vs M.Kanagappan on 29 April, 2003","datePublished":"2003-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-19T22:44:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003"},"wordCount":10600,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003","name":"C.S.Robert vs M.Kanagappan on 29 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-19T22:44:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-robert-vs-m-kanagappan-on-29-april-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.S.Robert vs M.Kanagappan on 29 April, 2003"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/147524","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=147524"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147524\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}