Madras High Court
Roman Catholic Bishop vs Rathina Sigamany on 7 July, 2021
1 S.A.No.826 OF 2005
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.826 of 2005 and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2014 & 1 of 2015
1. Roman Catholic Bishop,
Kottar Diocesease,
Ramavarmapuram,
Nagercoil,
K.K.District.
2. Parish Briest,
Kappakadu,
St.Antony's Church,
Kappakadu,
Kunnathoor Village,
Vilavangodu Taluk,
K.K.District. ... Appellants/Respondents 1 & 2/
Defendants 1 & 2
Vs.
1. Rathina Sigamany
2. Belarmin Joseph ... Respondents 1&2/Appellants 1&2/
Plaintiffs 1 & 2
3. Christopher
4. A.Jeyaraj
5. Rosemary
6. Arul Bose
7. Nithya
8. Divya ... Defendants 3,4,6 to 9/
Respondents 3,4,6 & 9/
Respondents 3 to 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/9
2 S.A.No.826 OF 2005
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in
A.S.No.32 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court,
Nagercoil dated 10.02.2005 reversing the Judgment and
Decree passed in O.S.No.169 of 1998 on the file of the II
Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, dated 08.08.2003.
For Appellants : Mr.Meenakshisundaram,
Senior counsel,
for Mr.C.Selvakumar.
For R-1 : Ms.Krishnaveni,
Senior counsel,
for Mr.P.Thiyagarajan.
For R-3 : Mr.S.Wilfred Prakash
For R-2 : No appearance.
***
JUDGMENT
The defendants in O.S.No.169 of 1998 on the file of
the II Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil, are the appellants
in this second appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2. The said suit was instituted by respondents 1 and 2
herein for restraining the appellants herein from deleting or
changing the name of the suit church. The appellants herein
filed their written statement opposing the suit claim. The first
plaintiff Rathina Sigamany examined himself as P.W.1 and
marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.18. On the side of the defendants,
Rev.Kulandhaisamy and Rev.Soosaimariyal were examined as
D.W.1 and D.W.2. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.5 were marked. After
examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Munsif by
judgment and decree dated 08.08.2003 dismissed the suit.
Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed A.S.No.32 of 2004
before the I Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil. By judgment and
decree dated 10.02.2005, the appeal was allowed and the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside.
Challenging the same, the contesting defendants filed the
present second appeal.
3. This second appeal was admitted on the following
substantial questions of law:-
“ a) Whether the first appellate Court is
correct in not discussing about the applicability
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
of the decision reported in 2003 (1) CTC 577,
while reversing the judgment of the trial Court?
(b) Whether the first appellate Court is
correct in coming to the conclusion that the suit
is maintainable without following Order I, Rule 8
of C.P.C.?
( c) Whether the first appellate Court is
correct in not giving reasons when reversing the
judgment of the trial Court discussing each
ground?”
4. Heard the learned Senior counsel on either side.
5. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the
appellants submitted that the suit is not maintainable as it has
not been filed in a representative capacity. The procedure set
out in Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. was not followed. By placing
reliance on the decision reported in CDJ 2003 MHC 1059
(C.S.Robert and Another V. M.Kanagappan and others), the
learned Senior counsel contended that once a church has been
consecrated, it would vest in the Pope and the Arch Bishop as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
a delegate of the Pope is entitled to the spiritual and temporal
powers over the church and it properties. He also submitted
that this is a second round of litigation and the power and
authority of Bishop to effect name change of the church was
already sustained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A.No.1037
of 1991 dated 13.10.1994. He prayed that the decision of the
first appellate Court must be reversed.
6. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing
for the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 drew my attention to the
very same decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench and pointed
out that as per Canon Law 1218, each church is said to have
its own title and once the church has been consecrated, its
title cannot be changed. She pointed out that the church is
presently located in Kappukadu and that in view of the
aforesaid Canon Law, the appellants cannot be permitted to
tamper with the name. The learned Senior counsel submitted
that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first
appellate Court does not call for any interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7. I carefully considered the rival contentions and
went through the evidence on record.
8. I do feel swayed by the reference to Canon Law
1218. However, what comes in the way is the outcome of the
earlier round of litigation. The name of the church was
originally “St. Antony's Church, Kallithattu”. It was changed
as St. Antony's Church, Kappukadu by the then Bishop.
That gave rise to the institution of O.S.No.381 of 1973 on the
file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. The
said suit was originally decreed on 17.11.1975. Questioning
the same, the then Bishop, Roman Catholic Bishop, Kottar
Diocesease and Parish Priest, Kappukadu, St.Antony's Church
filed A.S.No.359 of 1977 before the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai.
Allowing the appeal filed by the church, the first appellate
Judge gave a finding that the Bishop has every right to change
the name of the church for administrative purposes. The
matter went right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.1037 of 1991 held that
there is no interdict to change the name of the church as
St.Antony's Church Kappukadu. However, it was directed not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
to tamper with the name “Kallithattu” in the inscription of the
slab fixed in the foundation stone. Thus when in respect of the
very same church, the power and authority of the
church- Bishop to effect name change was already upheld, I
have to answer the first substantial question of law in favour
of the appellants. It is not necessary to answer the other
substantial questions of law.
9. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment
and decree passed by the first appellate Court is set aside and
the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is restored.
This second appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
To:
1. The I Additional Sub Judge,
Nagercoil.
2. The II Additional District Munsif,
Nagercoil.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
S.A.(MD)No.826 of 2005
07.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
