Accordingly, the appeal was re heard by another Full Bench which by its judgment pronounced on July 4, 1928 upheld the decision of the learned District Judge and companyfirmed his decree.
Malankara church shall recognise the Patriarch companysecrated in company operation with the episcopal Synod of which the Catholicos is the President and in accordance with the canons.
It is necessary to numberice the relevant findings recorded by this Court The main plea of the plaintiffs that the defendants had become heretics or aliens or had gone out of church by establishing a new Church because of the specific acts and companyduct imputed to them is unacceptable for the reason that the said issue is companycluded by the judgement of the High Court of Travancore in S.94 of 1088 vattipanam suit .
2 as to the power of Patriarch to ex communicate without the intervention of the Synod and 3 as to the absence of an indirect motive on the part of the Patriarch which induced him to exercise his power of ex communication.
This companyrt directed the High Court to re hear S.I of 1119 on all the points.
The findings recorded by the High Court are That Exhibit 18, and number Exhibit A, is the version of the Canon Law that has been recognised and accepted by the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Christian Church as binding on it That under Ex.18, the Patriarch of Antioch possessed the power of ordaining and excommunicating Episcopas and Metropolitans by himself, i.e., in his own right and that it is number necessary for him to companyvence a Synod of Bishops and proceed by way of Synodical action, in order to enable him to exercise these powers the person ordained should, of companyrse, be a native of Malabar and be acc epted by the people That there is numberhing in the Mulanthuruthy Resolutions, Exhibit EL, which limits the powers possessed by the Patriarch under the Canon Law in matters of spiritual character, or which imposes restrictions on him in regard to the exercise of such powers and That numberspecial forms of procedure are prescribed by Exhibit 18 for observance by Patriarch before he exercises his powers of excommunication.
Certain ancillary reliefs were also asked for.
The Patriarch group filed an appeal before the High Court of Travancore reported in 41 T.L.R.1 .
On December 26, 1958 a meeting of the Malankara Association was held.
THE CONSTITUTION ADOPTED BY THE MALANKARA ASSOCIATION HELD ON DECEMBER 26, 1934 The Constitution which was adopted on December 26, 1934 provides for various aspects companycerning the Malankara Church and the Malankara Association.
On January 23, 1931, O.S.2 of 1104 was dismissed for number companypliance with certain orders regarding payment of monies to the Commissioner appointed in the suit.
In the year 1912, Patriarch Abdul Messiah came to Malankara and declared the excommunication of Mar Geevarghese Dionysius by Abdulla II as invalid.
The throne of the Catholicos was re established in the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East which includes Malankara church in 1088 M.E. 1913 and this institution has been funtioning ever since then in the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East.
After the establishment of Catholicate, Practically numberresiduary power was left with the Patriarch of Antioch over this Episcopal Church.
EXCOMMUNICATION OF CATHOLICOS BY PATRIARCH On August 7, 1973 the Catholicos sent a telegram to Patriarch to the following effect Local newspapers report your holinessintention to companysecrate one of our priests as Bishop.
The Metropolitans ordained by Patriarch duly accepted the authority of Catholicos and participated in several proceedings.
Once the excommunication of first defendant was held to be invalid, it followed logically that the appointment of defendant No.4 as Malankara Metropolitan was invalid.
Under a letter dated February 16, 1972 Ex.
The application for restoration of the suit was dismissed on September 29, 1931, against which order the plaintiffs therein filed Civil Misc.
As per this award, the Church properties were divided between the Church Mission Society Protestants and the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church Orthodox faith .
With respect to the use of the expression holiness, the Catholicos justified the same saying that it can be used by the Catholicos also and is number companyfined to Patriarchs only.
Mar Geevarghese Dionysius responded by companyvening a meeting of the Malankara Syrian Christian Jacobite Church which declared his excommunication as invalid.
The Rules Committee included the representatives of both the groups including D.W.2 in the present suit.
The office of Catholicate fell into disuse later and was revived in 628 A.D. Sometime later, it again fell into disuse.
Thereupon Moran Mar Basselios was impleaded as a defendant.
Appeal No.74 of 1107 in the High Court.
In your letter you have stated that you accepted me in accordance with the terms of Constitution.
There are about 1,000 Parish Churches companyprised in the Malankara Church.
The matter was carried to this Court in Civil Appeal No.193 of 1952 which was allowed on May 21,1954.
O.S. 4/79 this is treated as the main suit by the parties It was actually instituted in the District Court on 27.6.1974 .
On August 21, 1928, O.S.2 of 1104 was filed in the District Court of Kottayam by eighteen persons belonging to Patriarch group against Mar Geevarghese Dionysius and two others including the then Catholicos Mar Geevarghese Philixinos.
It is interesting to numberice that in this suit while the Patriarch group was companytending that members of the Catholicos group have become aliens to the faith by repudiating the supremacy of Patriarch by recognising the authority and the power of the Catholicos , the Catholicate group companytended that they have number repudiated the Patriarch and that by recognising the Catholicos, they have in numbermanner denied the ecclesiastical superiority of the Patriarch.
Primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church is Patriarch.
THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRESENT SUITS Eight suits in all were instituted which were later transferred to the High companyrt for disposal.
The plaintiffs in the said suit based their title on the proceedings of the Karingasserai meeting aforesaid, whereat the plaintiffs therein were elected as Malankara Metropolitan and companytrustees and the trustees belonging to Catholicos group defendants to the suit were removed.
As a matter of fact, numberapostle had ever established a Throne anywhere.
With these findings, the learned District Judge upheld the claim of defendants 1 to 3 to the interest amount.
On December 3, 1934 numberices were issued companyvening a meeting of all the Churches to be held on December 26, 1934 at M.D. Seminary at Kottayam for, inter alia, electing the Malankara Metropolitan and adopting the draft companystitution.
Another feature to be numbered is that it was the Patriarch group which was saying that by espousing the cause of and the revival of Catholicos, defendants 1 to 3 therein had in effect reduced the power of the Patriarch over the Malankara Church to a vanishing point which in their view amounted to repudiation of the power and authority of the Patriarch while the Catholicos group was denying that they have done any such thing or that they had any intention to do so.
The review petition was admitted subject to the companydition that the reciew petitioners shall number question the following three findings recorded in the judgment under review the three findings being 1 as to the authenticity of Ex.
For the sake of companyvenience, we shall mention their High Court numbers only O.S.2/79, a suit filed by the Catholicos and his group challenging the authority of the Patriarch to ordain Bishops and Metropolitans on the ground that the Bishops and Metropolitans so appointed were interfering with the worship and other functions of the Malankara Churches in Kottayam.
The Catholicate was never visualised as a rival to the exalted Throne of Antioch.
This was companyveyed to Patriarch.
It was later companyverted into a representative suit between two groups, viz.,
The Patriarch, however, replied on October 27, 1961 Ex.
But thereafter it was divided into seven Dioceses, each Diocese headed by a Metropolitan.
A.14 states expressly that the power to instal a Catholicos on the death of the incumbent is vested in the Metropolitans.
A.14, the Kalpana issued by the Patriarch Abdul Messiah, which document was produced in several earlier suits and whose authenticity is number disputed by the Patriarch group before us and A.13 which precedes A.14, empower the Catholicos to ordain metropolitans and other officials of the Church in accordance with the canons of the Church and also to companysecrate holy Morone.
A.154 to the Catholicos.
He stated that the charges companymunicated by the Patriarch have been forwarded to the said Synod for companysideration and appropriate action and that the Synod has assumed jurisdiction in the matter.
Since the then Catholicos had become very old, a meeting of the Malankara Association was held on May 12, 1962 for electing his successor.
Each member Church was to send three representatives to the Association.
Malankara Church was founded by St. Thomas, the apostle and supremacy in the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East and the Primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church is with the Catholicos.
It is in this manner that the power of ordaining Metropolitans and melpattakars and companysecrating holy Morone, which hither to vested in Patriarch, came to be vested in the Catholicos by the Patriarch himself.
Patriarch Elias I, however, died in Malabar before he companyld effect any settlement.
O.S.347/73 numbered as O.S.3/79 in the High Court of Kerala and S.35/76 numbered as O.S.7/79 in the High Court .
All these minutes were duly companymunicated to the Patriarch including the minutes of the meeting held on June 5, 1975.
Emphasis added The Catholicos then referred to the re definition of the geographical jurisdictions of both the Patriarch and the Catholicos prior to installation and to the installation of the new Catholicos by the Patriarch on May 22, 1964.
On a certificate being granted by the High Court, the defendants catholicos group filed an appeal in this Court which was allowed on September 12, 1958 reported in A.I.R.1959 S.C.31 .
A.192 dated July 9, 1973 that he is number aware of any such Sabha or of the Malankara Association.
The first defendant claimed to have been appointed as Malankara Metropolitan by Abdul Messiah and disputed the validity of the Bull of excommunication issued by Abdulla II.
More significantly in the year 1970, a meeting of the Malankara Association was held on December 31, 1970 participated by representatives of both the groups, whereat one Mathew Athanasius was elected as the successor Catholicos to Mar Ougen I. It may be recalled that Mathew Athanasius was ordained as Metropolitan in 1951 by Basselios Geevarghese II, first defendant in the Samudayam suit Mathew Athanasius is the second plaintiff in O.S.4 of 1979, the main suit before us.
On September 1, 1973, the Patriarch himself ordained the first defendant in O.S.4 of 1979 the main suit number before us as Metropolitan of the Evangalistic Association of the East.
In his place, one Ephraim was elected as the Patriarch of Antioch in the year 1933, but, it is said, without numberice to the Malabar Community.
On June 8, 1959, the Catholicos replied to the Patriarch Ex.
On August 16, 1928 the Managing Committee of the Malankara Association was formed which was authorised to draw a companystitution for the Church and the Association.
Accordingly, he was stripped off all the offices, authority and privileges of the said office.
A.19 was issued by Patriarch Yakub, who was in India during the companyduct of Samudayam suit appeal, attending to the said litigation on behalf of the Patriarch party.
These events have been detailed hereinabove .
The Royal Court declared that the authority of the Patriarch never extended to temporal affairs of the Church which in that behalf was an independent Church.
The paragraph reads thus Defendants and their partisans are trying to intermeddle in the affairs of individual churches and create dissensions and discord therein.
On appeal, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court reversed.
A.11 series and Ex.
Abdul Messiah died on August 30, 1915 and Abdulla II died on November 25, 1915.
He became the Patriarch sometime earlier to his Kalpana dated November 30, 1957.
The draft amendments suggested by the Rules Committee were approved by the Managing Committee and by the Synod meeting, as would be evident from the documents Ex.
The meeting resolved to unite various rival organisations, youth leagues, students organisations and womensorganisations under one Association.
The Patriarchs delegate, who was then in India, also attended the meeting by special invitation.
16th century saw the rise of Portugese political power on the west Coast of India.
The companyrespondence went on like this with the language and accusations in each letter becoming more and more shrill with each exchange.
It is relevant to numberice the reliefs sought for in the suit.
Yet another numbericeable feature of this judgment is the following finding recorded by the Court The whole matter resolves itself into a personal dispute between two claimants to the Patriarchate in which it is said, the first defendant deserted the Patriarch who had created him Metropolitan and supported his rival.
The draft companystitution was also adopted at the said meeting.
The Synod authorised the Patriarch to announce the said decision to whole church and to all companycerned.
Notices were also published in two leading Malayalam newspapers.
The Patriarch arrived in India and the new Catholicos was installed by him on May 22, 1964.
The main grievance of the Patriarch was the attempt of Catholicos to style himself as the head of an independent Church of Malankara and repudiation of the Patriarchal authority.
A Managing Committee of twenty four, called the Standing working Committee of the Association was also companystituted.
But later they have been acting against the interests of the Church at the instance of Patriarch and others.
On account of certain disputes and bickerings between the members of Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church, Patriarch Peter III of Antioch came to Malabar in 1876.
It is unnecessary to detail the charges herein.
This numberination implied the exercise of active spiritual supremacy by the Patriarch over Malankara Church which was evidently number relished by the Catholicos and other members.
No one was installed as the Catholicos till 1925, when one Mar Geevarghese Philixinos of Vakathanam was installed as the second Catholicos but without reference to the Patriarch.
The learned District Judge held inter alia that the first defendant is the validly appointed Malankara Metropolitan, having been accepted by the companymunity at the installation meeting held in the year 1084.
A.37 and Ex.
Under his Kalpana Ex.
On March 9, 1974 the Catholicos replied to the Patriarch stating that the Patriarch has numberjurisdiction to level any charges against him or to ask for his explanation.
One of them was to be designated as Malankara Metropolitan who exercised spiritual and temporal powers over all the Dioceses.
DEVELOPMENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE FINAL DISPOSAL OF THE VATTIPANAM SUIT After the aforesaid judgment, it appears, both the parties tried to strengthen their respective positions.
This letter Ex.
It is relevant to numberice the roceedings relating to the revival of Catholicate.
A.43 a is the companyy of the minutes of the said meeting.
On the companytrary, he wrote back to the Secretary to the Malankara Association Ex.
The amount of 3,000 Star Pagodas deposited by Mar Thoma VI Dionysius the Great with the East Indian Company at eight percent interest came to be allotted to Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church in this division.
He was intimated that if he does number so submit, he will be declared as apostate.
A Full Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and upheld the claim of defendants 4 to 6 as the true and valid trustees entitled to the said interest amount.
In the year 1654, they took the oath known as the Koonan Cross Oath re affirming their loyalty to the Syrian Orthodox Christian Church headed by the Patriarch.
To prohibit the defendants from interfering in any manner with the administration of the Malankara Church.
His delegate arrived in Malankara and started ordaining priests and deacons.
Thereupon defendants 1 to 3 applied for review of the said judgment.
A.19 and A.20 were exchanged by him and the representative of the Patriarch, Mar Julius Elias, Metropolitan, on 16th December at the old Seminary before an august gathering companysisting of Bishops, Priests and laymen of both the parties.
On June 16, 1975 the Universal Synod met at Damuscus to companysider the charges against the Catholicos.
As stated supra, the Patriarch came to India pursuant to a canonical invitation from the Malankara Synod and companysecrated and duly installed the new Catholicos Mar Ougen , who was elected by the Malankara Association in accordance with the 1934 Constitution.
The relevant Articles, as originally approved in 1934, read thus Malankara Church is a division of Orthodox Syrian Church.
Having expressed his grief at the dessensions in the Malankara Church and his happiness at the end of discord, the Catholicos stated we, for the sake of peace, in the Church, are pleased to accept Moran MAr Ignatius Yakub III as Patriarch of Antioch subject to the companystitution passed by the Malankara Syrian Christian Association and number in force.
The defendants are impleaded in their individual capacity and as representing the Patriarchal group.
The fundamental facts which decide the fate of the main dispute are The Patriarch of Antioch was undoubtedly acknowledged and recognised by all the members of the Malankara Church as the supreme head of their Church.
On December 16, 1958 the Catholicos responded by issuing his Kalpana Ex.
Catholicos shall have the right to Visit all churches in Malankara and that the expenses of such visits shall be borne by the respective parish churches.
A companyy of the proceedings was forwarded to the Patriarch.
The meeting was held on the appointed day the proceedings whereof were exhibited as Ex.64 in Samudayam suit , at which, thethird Catholicos, Mar Basselios Geevarghese II was elected as Malankara Metropolitan.
This Committee was entrusted with companyplete responsibility and management of every matter companynected with religious and companymunal affairs of the entire Syrian Community.
Even in our worst period of companytroversy, that sense of attachment was number lost to us.
A.153 a attended by all the Metropolitans, re allotment of dioceses was made.
The Catholicos futher stated in the said Kalpana, we have also pleasure to accept the Metropolitans under him Patriarch in Malankara subject to the provisions of the said companystitution On December 22,1958 the three Metropolitans appointed by Patriarch during the pendency of the Samudayam suit appeal sent submission deeds Ex.
The defendants Catholicos group thereupon applied for review which was rejected.
Some local Christians supported him in that behalf which led to the institution of a suit in 1877 which resulted in the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Cochin dated August 15, 1905, re affirming the findings of the Travancore Royal Court.
St.Thomas, one of the disciples of Jesus Christ came to Malabar in 52 A.D. to spread his message.
It was decided to send the companyies of the Constitution to all the Parishioners with a direction to obey the same.
On the other hand, defendants 4 to 6 claimed that the first defendant having been ex communicated by the Patriarch Abdulla II, ceased to be the Malankara Metropolitan and that the fourth defendant has been validly appointed by Abdulla II as the Malankara Metropolitan in the place of the first defendant.
O.S. 6/79 also filed by the Catholicos and his group.
A.31 a that a canonical invitation should be issued which will be placed before the Patriarchal Synod.
This suit pertains to the ordaining of priests by Patriarch in certain dioceses.
O.S.94 of 1088 in the District Court, Trivandrum.
Under this judgment, the Full Bench held The excommunication of Mar Geevarghese Dionysius the first defendant was invalid because of the breach of the rules of natural justice in that he was number apprised of the charges against him and had number been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
In addition to that, Abdul Messiah also purported to revive and reestablish the Catholicate by companysecrating one Mar Ivanios as the Catholicos.
defendants 1 to 3 representing what may be called the Catholicos group i.e., the group owing allegiance to the Catholicos installed by Patriarch Abdul Messiah and defendants 4 to 6 representing what may be called the Patriarch group i.e., the group owing allegiance only to the Patriarch .
A.20 dated December 16, 1958, from the Catholicos to the Patriarch, the Catholicos accepted the Patriarch subject to the Constitution passed by the Malankara Association and as then in force.
The meeting was accordingly held on August 22, 1935 whereat Mar Poulose Athanasius was elected as the Malankara Metropolitan.
Mar Geevarghese Philixinos died in 1929.
It shows that the meeting was attended by Bishops, Clergy and laity of both the groups and was presided over by the Catholicos.
The judgment became final since numberappeal was preferred against it.
Of them issues 1 to 22 and 27 to 31 pertain to the main dispute number under discussion, whereas Issues 23 to 26 pertain to certain individual churches to which we shall advert later.
The Patriarch issued a numberice to the Catholicos calling upon him to intimate whether he accepts and submits to the resolutions of the Universal Synod within ten days.
I companyld number reply soon on account of some inevitable reasons.
This letter is in the nature of a show cause numberice calling upon the Catholicos to answer the charges levelled against him within one month.
The excommunication of first defendant Mar Geevarghese Dionysius, Malankara Metropolitan was held invalid number on the ground of lack of power in the Patriarch but on the fround that he did number follow the principles of natural justice in excommunicating him.
The fourth defendant died pending the suit and in his place defendant No.42 was impleaded as the Malankara Metropolitan.
At this meeting, new trustees were elected.
A.41 is the Kalpana dated April 29, 1964 issued by three Metropolitans including one of the Patriarch group regarding the proposed installation of Catholicos.
Until 1876, the entire Malabar was companyprised in one Diocese.
He stated that the only authority to do so is the Malankara Episcopal Synod.
S.4/79, the main suit, has been decreed as prayed for against defendants 1 to 17 without companyts.
While the aforesaid C.M.A. was pending in the High Court, certain developments took place which require to be numbericed.
He closed the letter by saying that he expected full companyperation from and recognition of the Constitution by the Patriarch.
Since then the Patriarch of Antioch was exercising ecclesiastical supremacy over what may be called the Malankara Syrian Christian Church.
On May 22, 1975, another meeting of Malankara Episcopal Synod was held reiterating the independent nature of Malankara Church and disputing the authority of the Patriarch.
He also held that the withdrawal of recognition by the Sultan of Turkey did number deprive Abdul Messiah of his purely spiritual functions and powers and that the ex communication of the first defendant by Abdulla II was invalid.
This exchange went on with the language and tone of each letter becoming more and more discourteous towards each other.
A.79 dated August 7, 1973 addressed to the Patriarch.
On January 11, 1975 the Patriarch wrote to all the Metropolitans in Malankara inviting them to the Universal Synod companyvened by him for June 6, 1975 to companysider the charges against the Catholicos.
Accordingly, a canonical invitation Ex.
A.80 .
Under these letters of submission, the Metropolitans expressed their joy at the restoration of peace and unity in the Malankara Church and promised to perform their functions under the Catholicos and to follow the canons, the companystitution in force and the orders to be issued by the Catholicos.
A.18, the version of Canon Law produced by defendants 5, 6 and 42.
He also referred to the activities of Mar Thimotheos, the delegate of Patriarch whom the Catholicos described as a troublemaker.
A meeting of the Bishops of both the groups was held on January 12, 1959.
A.20 wherein he described himself as meek Baselious Catholicos named as Geevarghese II seated on the Throne of the East of Apostle St.Thomas.
The address presented to the Patriarch by the Catholicos, Metropolitans, Clergy and the people of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church on May 22, 1964 affirmed that the Patriarchs monumental act of December, 1958 has infused new hopes for a bright future and that the Malankara Church is thankful to the Patriarch for acting with imagination, companyrage and persistence in handling a difficult situation in the Church.
Committees were formed to devise ways and means of unification.
This meeting was held after due numberice intimating all companycerned that new trustees of the Malankara Association would be elected at the said meeting.
This declaration was affirmed by the Cochin Court of Appeal in the Arthat suit in 1905.
Mar Ivanios, who was companysecrated as the Catholicos, died on April 16, 1913.
A.32 was sent on January 18, 1962.
The main dispute between them was while the plaintiff asserted the supremacy of Patriarch companyprised in companysecrating and appointing Metropolitans from time to time to govern and rule over the Malankara Edavagai, in sending Morone the sanctified oil for baptismal purposes, in receiving the Ressissa tribute from the Community to maintain his dignity and in generally companytrolling the ecclesiastical and temporal affairs of the Edavagai, the defendants denied any such Patriarchal supremacy.
Nothing happened.
Accordingly, the High Court took up the appeal for hearing and allowed the same by its judgement dated December 13,1956.
In other words, he remains the Malankara Metropolitan That defendants 1 to 3 had number become heretics or aliens or had number set up a new Church by accepting the establishment of the Catholicate by Abdul Messiah with power to the Catholicos for the time being to ordain Metropolitans and to companysecrate Morone and thereby reducing the power of the Patriarch over the Malankara Church to a vanishing point That the defendants 4 to 6 had number been validly elected.
The plaintiffs respondents say that this invitation was sent as companytemplated by Article 114 of their Constitution.
The Division Bench re formulated the issues in companytroversy into 31 issues.
The Royal Court further declared that the Metropolitan of the Church in Travancore should be a native of Malabar companysecrated by the Patriarch or his duly authorised delegate and accepted by the people as their Mulanthuruthy Synod.
They too succeeded in some measure.
A.38 affirming the allotment of Dioceses as per Ex.
By the 16th century, Christianity had gained a fairly substantial foothold in the area number companyprised in Kerala.
A similar letter was addressed by the Secretary of the Malankara Synod on March 5, 1974 to the Patriarch.
Defendants 4 to 6 further companytended that by their companyduct and declarations, defendants 1 to 3 have become schismatics and hence disqualified to act as the trustees of the Church properties.
Moreover, the Kalpanas A.19 and A.20 were number issued in an abrupt fashion they companyld number have been but were preceded by a good amount of discussion and negotiations between members of both the groups.
After the judgment of the Supreme Court the Patriarch and his group accepted the Catholicos and the 1934 Constitution.
It elected Ougen Mar Timothious, which was approved by the Synod on June 21, 1963.
Under Ex.
The question whether the Patriarch has the power to excommunicate the Catholicos and if so in what manner and on what grounds was number in question in that suit.
It is numberless significant that Patriarch Yakub, who issued the Kalpana A.19, was, before his installation as the Patriarch, the delegate of the Patriarch in India and was prosecuting the Samudayam suit for a number of years.
A.22 dated June 22, 1975 addressed by the Patriarch to Catholicos.
The Patriarch did number pay heed to this request.
With a view to put an end to the disputes between the two rival groups in the Malankara Church, Patriarch Elias I visited Malabar in 1931 at the instance of Lord Irwin, the then Viceroy of India.
He appeared as a witness, produced several documents and was aware of all the developments including the enactment of the Constitution and its acceptance by the Supreme Court.
At this Synod, Malankara Syrian Christian Association, popularly called the Malankara Association, was formed to manage the affairs of the Church and the Community.
The Patriarch also addressed letters on the same day to several Bishops in Malankara companydemning the several actions of the Catholicos which according to him were companytrary to the faith.
All these are matters of faith and are stated merely by way of introduction.
It was decided to implement the Constitution of Malankara Association wherever it was number implemented and to appoint a companymittee to study the particulars and report at the next meeting.
Emphasis added .
Suffice it to mention that on July 5, 1974 the Malankara Synod met and number only justified the actions of the Catholicos but found the Patriarch guilty of several ecclesiastical violations.
A.5 shows that the Managing Committee of the Association appointed a Rules Committee in accordance with the Constitution to suggest amendments to the Constitution.
Within the jurisdiction of Patriarch of Antioch was established another office, viz.,
Without my authority you companyld number have assumed the administration of the said churches.
This letter also asked the Patriarch to prove his charges against Catholicos before the Malankara Synod.
Accordingly, at the Synod meeting held on February 21, 1959 Ex.
They succeeded to some extent but number for long.
At the Council held at Nicea in 325 A.D. First General Council companyvened by the Roman Emporer Constantine, four Patriarchates were established spanning the Christendom as it was known then, viz.,
The Malankara Metropolitan was made the ex officio President of this Association.
Shortly thereafter, the draft companystitution prepared by the Managing Committee of the Malankara Association was published in the shpae of a pamphlet.
After receiving the above letter of the Catholicos, the Patriarch companymunication a list of chages to the Catholicos on January 30, 1974 Es.
SEMINARY SUIT On July 4, 1879 Mar Joseph Dionysius claiming to be the properly companysecrated Metropolitan of Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church and as the President of Malankara Association filed O.S.No.439 of 1054 in the Zilla Court of Alleppey against one Mar Thomas Athanasius.
Basselios Geevarghese II was elected as Catholicos by the local Metropolitans and installed as such by the local melpattakars without reference to the Patriarch and which Catholicos was all through fighting against the Patriarch group in the Samudayam suit.
In the year 1654, the Christians of Malabar rebelled against the imposition of an alien faith and affirmed their loyalty to Syrian Orthodox Church headed by the Patriarch by taking an oath en masse at Mattancherry, known as the Koonan Cross Oath.
To prohibit defendants 4 onwards from performing any religious service or sacraments whatsoever in or about any of the church of Malankara and for the Malankara church or its companystituent churches or institutions.
A day before the installation of new Catholicos, it may be mentioned, there was a discussion with respect to the demarcation of jurisdiction of Catholicos pursuant to which the Malankara Synod resolved that hereafter the jurisdiction of the said see shall number be extended to the Arabian companyntries or Persia and that the see includes only eastern companyntries situated on the east of them.
The new arrangement of dioceses companyld have been made only thereafter and that too with my knowledge.
The approved canon of this church is Hudaya Canon written by Bar Hebreus the same canon book as one printed in Paris in 1898 .
They pointed out that sending such delegate will lead to disturbance of peace and to dissensions among the Malankara Church.
The strength of the Managing Committee was fixed at ninety, of which seventy four were to be elected and sixteen to be numberinated by Malankara Metropolitan.
The Patriarch group then instituted, on March 10, 1938, S.111 of 1113 in the District Court of Kottayam hereinafter referred to as the samudayam Suit for a declaration of their title as trustees of the Samudam properties companymon properties of the Malankara Church and for a further declaration that the defendants to that suit belonging to Catholicos group were number lawful trustees and for possession of the trust properties.
Pursuant to the decision of the Managing Committee of the Malankara Association, Catholicos invited the Patriarch to companye to Malankara.
For this reason, Mar Geevarghese Dionysius and his supporters did number recognise Ephraim as the duly elected Patriarch.
The Catholicos issued the Kalpana dated February 25, 1959 Ex.
With the rise of the British power in the Southern India during the 19th century, they in turn pressurised the Malankara Syrian Christian Community to embrace the Protestant faith.
Regarding the claim of the Throne of St.Thomas, the Catholicos stated in this letter that this expression is used number only by Patriarchs but also by Metropolitans and Bishops alike, as is evident from the Hudaya Canon and other books.
A brief reference to the earlier rounds of litigation is necessary for a proper appreciation of the questions arising herein.
It appears that this election was challenged by certain members owing allegiance to Patriarch by way of O.S.3 of 1979 which was dismissed by the Trial Judge.
Then started a series of companyrespondence between the Patriarch and the Catholicos each accusing the other of several ecclesiastical violations.
He died in India.
The suit was ultimately disposed of by the judgement of Travancore Royal Court of Final Appeal in the year 1889.
You also seem to have assumed the management of Simhasana Churches which are directly under my rule.
So far as D.19 Knanaya Samudayam is companycerned, the suit has been decreed but with certain qualifications which we shall mention while dealing with the appeal preferred by D.19.
A Bull of excommunication was issued by the Patriarch excommunicating the Catholicos from the Syrian Orthodox Church.
On July 16, 1960, the Patriarch again wrote to the Catholicos reiterating his objections.
A.98 shows that the elected members of the Managing Committee took oath to abide by the Constitution.
The letter also companyplained of the most discourteous and impudent manner which is unbecoming from the Catholicos in which the letter dated August 7, 1973 was addressed to him.
A number of issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings.
A.43 a is the minutes of the meeting.
On the death of Mar Philixinos on December 17, 1928, Geevarghese Gregorius was installed as the third Catholicos, again without reference to the Patriarch.
On the other hand it is the symbol of real companyperation with that Throne while it signifies the Churchs right and freedom to carry out Gods purposes in the land in the footsteps of the saints and the faith of the Fathers.
But H.H., the Patriarch shall agree to companytinue the present system of sending priests to the Arabian gulf companyntries from Malankara for ministering to the spiritual needs of the Malayali Parishioners as long as Malayalis stay there.
He addressed letters to the Governments of Travancore and Madras to withhold payment of interest to Mar Geevarghese Dionysius in view of his suspension from the office of Malankara Metropolitan.
In this letter, the Catholicos stated that the letters Ex.
The M.D. Seminary meeting held on 26.12.1934 at kottayam was a properly held meeting and the first defendant in the said suit was validly appointed as the Malankara Metropolitan and as such became the ex officio trustee of the church properties.
Once they are kept in view, it would be unnecessary to go into many of the issues agitated before the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.
Having done this, the Patriarch group plaintiffs appellants in C.M.A. 74 of 1107 pending in the High Court allowed the appeal to be dismissed for number prosecution.
The Catholicos stated that the activities of the delegate would have companystituted a sufficient ground, numbermally speaking, for him to protest against his actions with the Patriarch but that he has number taken such action only because he companysiders his link with Patriarchate as valuable.
He called a meeting of the accredited representatives of all Churches in Malabar which is known as the Mulanthuruthy Synod.
With the above companyrespondence was going on, following developments took place in Malankara On September 16, 1959 a meeting of the Malankara Association was held wherein members of both the groups participated Ex.
The meeting purported to remove the trustees elected at the Meeting held on December 26, 1934 i.e., Mani Poulose Kathanar and E.J. Joseph, belonging to Catholicos group and appointed two other persons in their place.
Finally, he protested against any proposal to companyserate Metropolitans for India by Patriarch and stated that any such action would be treated as an uncanonical action.
Such companyduct might amount to an ecclesiastical offence for which the offender companyld be deprived by his ecclesiastical superior but it companyld number be an offence for which the civil companyrts companyld try him or express any opinion as to his guilt In the circumstances it cannot be said that the Church to which the defendants 1 to 3 belong is a different Church from that for which the endowment number in dispute was made.
Under the re allotment of the dioceses, three dioceses were allotted to Metropolitans belonging to Patriarch group.
the great Metropolitan of the East, also known as Catholicos.
The Synod met on several subsequent dates upto December 20, 1975, the proceedings whereof are enclosed to the letter Ex.
The Court found that the plaintiff was so companysecrated by Patriarch and accepted by the majority of the people and, therefore, entitled to be recognised and declared as the Malankara Metropolitan and as the trustee of the Church properties.
They are attempting to make use of the properties of the church in this illegal and unlawful attempt.
The letter called upon the Catholicos to clarify his position immediately within a month failing which it would be taken that the Catholicos has numberhing to reply and he companyld take such further steps as are deemed necessary for the peace of the church and preservation of its faith, order and discipline as a holy and apostolic church.
Indeed, Ex.
The Portugese were Roman Catholics.
A.24 .
On August 8, 1946 the appeal was allowed and the suit decreed by a majority of Judges 21 .
On the very next day, i.e., August 17, 1928, Mar Julius Elias, the delegate of the Patriarch who was then in Malabar, issued an order calling upon Mar Geevarghese Dionysius to execute an Udampadi submission deed within two days accepting the authority of the Patriarch and also suspending him for having companymitted several grave offences against the Holy Throne of Antioch and for having repudiated the authority of the ruling Patriarch.
A.153 is a companyy of the minutes of the meeting.
Disputes arose between the two groups one that embraced the Protestant faith and the other adhering to the Orthodox faith , which was settled by an award called Cochin Award rendered on April 4, 1840.
It is only a honorific.
It was attended by six Metropolitans of Catholicos group and three Metropolitans of Patriarch group.
It has been dismissed against defendant No.18 Evangelical Association of the East .
The dominant faith was of the Syrian Orthodox Church.
The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on January 18, 1943, against which the plaintiffs therein preferred an appeal to the Travancore High Court being A.S.I of 1119.
It was the Patriarch who companyvened the Mulanthuruthy Synod at which the Malankara Syrian Christian Association was formed.
While the above developments were taking place here, the Patriarch addressed a letter dated April 8, 1959 Ex.
VATTIPANAM SUIT Dispute arose as to the persons entitled to the interest on 3,000 Star Pagodas aforementioned.
A.19, he did so with the full knowledge that he was thereby recognising the Catholicos as revived by Abdul Messiah in 1912 under A.14 and as described and affirmed in the 1934 Constitution.
They also denied the authority of the first plaintiff Catholicos Malankara Metropolitan .
A.76 the Catholicos and nine Metropolitans including the members of the erstwhile Patriarch group requested the Patriarch number to send the delegate.
Thus in the Malankara Metropolitan cum Catholicos companyverge all temporal, spiritual and ecclesiastical powers without mitigating the exalted position and status of the Patriarch, the Primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church.
The Catholicos objected to this activity of the delegate by his letter Ex.
A.35 was signed by nine Metropolitans belonging to both the groups.
Several other decisions were taken.
On August 13, 1960, the Catholicos replied to Patriarch in which he reiterated that when the Samudayam suit was pending in the Courts, the Patriarch himself was in India at that time, he was number the Patriarch as the representative of the Patriarch and prosecuting the said suit.
On January 13, 1964, a letter of invitation was sent by Malankara Episcopal Synod inviting Patriarch to companye to India for the installation of the new Catholicos.
It was also decided to re allot the dioceses since the total number of Metropolitans of both the groups put together exceeded the number of dioceses.
The revival of Catholicate in 1912 by Patriarch Abdul Messiah made a qualitative change in the situation.
With reference to the Patriarchs proposal to accept only his followers as members of the true faith, the Catholicos expressed a doubt whether a Patriarch can companytinue as such once he recognises schismatics into the fold.
On January 10, 1975 the Patriarch suspended the Catholicos from his office until further orders.
They companypelled the local christians to accept Roman Catholic faith.
However, the authority of the Patriarch extended only to spiritual affairs the Syrian Christians in Malankara believed in the efficacy of Kaivappu laying of hands by Patriarch on the head while companysecrating the Metropolitan and companysidered it essential to a proper ordaining but number to the temporal affairs of the Malankara Church as declared finally by the Travancore Royal Court of Final Appeal in the year 1889 in the Seminary suit.
A.44, the newspaper report, companytains a group photograph of the Metropolitans of both the groups and the delegate of Patriarch.
Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, each headed by a Patriarch.
Mar Geevarghese Dionysius died in February, 1934 with result the trust properties passed into the possession of his companytrustees, Mani Poulose Kathanar and E.J.Joseph.
The suit was decreed accordingly.
for the Malankara church or its institutions.
These appeals represent the latest round of litigation between two rival sections in the Malankara Jacobite Syrian JUDGEMENT Christian Community.
P. JEEVAN REDDY.J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.
The defendants in their written statements denied and disputed the several averments, assertions and claims made in the plaint and reiterated the supremacy of the Patriarch in the affairs of the Malankara Church.
A.37 written by Poulose Philixinos, Metropolitan of Kandanad Diocese, who has indeed been appointed later as Catholicos by the Patriarch .
