Suits for claim over Church properties to proceed: SC

New Delhi, Apr 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court has disapproved the approach of Kerala High Court in deciding the issue of disputed facts over the title of a large number of church properties known as 'Syrian Churches' in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

A bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and Markandey Katju also cleared the decks for trial of over 200 civil suits pending in different civil courts in Kerala for control and management of church propeties by rival groups.

The appellant Mohan M Baselios Marthoma Mathews-II had filed a writ in the high court seeking directions to the state government to provide police protection to him to enable him to exercise his rights, duties and privileges as the Catholics cum Malankara Metropolitan of the Malankara Church with respect to the Parishes mentioned in exhibit 4 and Institutions of the Malankara Church without any threat or obstruction from the respondents or their agents or servants in any manner.

The High Court entertained the writ petitions and went into the question of the title of the church properties despite the fact about 200 civil suits filed by a large number of members of rival groups of Christians were already pending in various civil courts of the state and also interpreted the Supreme Court judgment Most Rev P M A Metropolitan&others vs. Moran Mar Marthoma&others delivered in 1995.

The high court went into the merits of matter and opined that so far as the rights of Parish Churches are concerned there was no declaration as against them, having not been impleaded in proceedings before the Supreme Court. Having opined so the high court held that it can not be said that contesting respondents have no right to manage their properties or that the ist petitioner has any right over the Churches which were not parties in the case.

The high court also refused to provide any police protection to the appellant.

The Supreme Court in its judgment ruled,"We are of the opinion that the high court committed a manifest error in going into the disputed questions of title as also the disputed questions in regard to the rights of a particular group to manage the churches, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, particularly when such questions are pending consideration before competent civil courts.

We are therefore of the opinion that any observation made by the high court should not influence the courts concerned in arriving at their independant decisions and in respect thereof all contentions of the parties shall remain open.

We are making these observations particularly in view of the fact that even a large number of persons who have filed different suits in different courts of law were not made parties before the high court in writ petitions and thus any observations and findings of the high court would otherwise also not be binding on them." The apex court concluded by saying," It must be clarified that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the issue pending before the civil courts. The appeals are disposed of accordingly." UNI AKS/SC RP KN1932