http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MOST REV. P.M.A.METROPOLITAN AND ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MORAN MAR MARTHOMA MATHEWS & ANR. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/02/1997

BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, SUHAS C. SEN, S.B. MAJMUDAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1997 Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P.Jeevan Reddy               Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suhas C.Sen               Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Majumdar      C.S. ‘Vaidyanathan,  Harish N.Salve,  F.S.Nariman, Raju Ramachandran and  T.L.V. Iyer,  Sr. Advs., P.K. Manohar, roy Abraham, Ms.  Baby Krishnan,  E.M.S. Anam,  Ms. Lily Thomas, Ms. K.  V. Vijayakumar,  P.J. Philips  K.V. Mohan,  T.G.  N. Nair, Ranjit  Thomas, Sudarsh  Menon, and  S.  Balakrishnan, Advs. with them for the appearing parties.                          O R D E R      The following order of the Court was delivered:      These matters  are posted  before us  for  orders  with respect to  the drafting  of the  decree  pursuant  to  this Court’s judgment  delivered on  January 20,  1995. By  order dated March  25, 1996,  we had  requested  Ms.  Manju  Goel, Registrar (Judicial - II) to prepare the decree in the light of the judgment aforesaid, after notice to both the parties. The learned  Registrar had  drafted a  decree to  which both parties filed  objections. In  view of  certain  contentions raised by  the parties,  the matter was remitted to the said Registrar for  revising the  draft of  the decree.  She  has accordingly prepared  a revised  draft decree to which again both parties  have  filed  objections.  We  have  heard  the counsel for  both the  parties and  direct that  the  decree shall be prepared in following manner.      In the first instance, the decree shall set out the ten clauses found in Para 142 of the Judgment.      Then it  shall set out the following portions from Para 141 of  the Judgment.  The first  portion in Para 141 starts with the  words, "We  are, however,  of the  opinion that in this suit no declaration can be granted affecting the rights of Parish churches" and ends with the words "any title to or control over  the properties  held by  the Parish churches". The second  portion in  Para 141  begins with the words, "In the state of such a pleading, the only observation" and ends with the  words "insofar  as the  said Constitution provides for the same".      The decree shall then set out Para 150 which deals with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Kananaya church.      The decree shall then say that the decree passed by the High Court (decree under appeal) shall stand modified to the extent indicated above.                           PART II      In Part  II of  the order  dated March  25,  1996,  the following  sentence   shall  be  inserted  before  the  last sentence: "The  above direction  is subject to the condition that any  and every  person claiming  to hold  any office or post in  this church  shall be  bound  by  and  shall  swear allegiance to the 1934 Constitution".                           PART III      In Part  I of  the order  dated March  25, 1996, we had directed that  Articles 71  and 46,  as drafted  by us shall stand substituted  in the  place of the existing Articles 71 and 46 in the 1934 Constitution with effect from the date of the said  order. In  Articles 71 and 46, which were directed to be  so substituted,  an error  has crept  in. Instead  of mentioning  "members  of  the  Parish  Assembly",  the  word "families" is  used. We, therefore, direct that wherever the word "family"  or "families" occur in the said two Articles, as drafted  by us,  they shall  be substituted  by the words "member" or  members", as  the case may be. it is made clear that when we speak of the "members" in the said articles, we refer to  members as  contemplated by  and as  mentioned  in clause (7) of the 1934 Constitution (which deals with Parish church and Parish Assembly).      The first Proviso in Article 71 is deleted.                           PART IV      In view  of the  aforementio ned  controversies, it  is submitted by the counsel for the parties, no elections could so far  be held as contemplated and directed by the Judgment of this  Court. In Part I of the order dated March 25, 1996, it was  directed by  this Court that the election of members of the  Association and  the Diocesan  Assemblies shall take place within  three months  therefrom on  the basis  of  the amended/substituted  Articles   71  and  46.  The  time  for conducting the said elections is extended upto and inclusive of April 30, 1997.      Ordered accordingly.