DISTT. COUNCIL OF UNITED BASEL MISSION CHURCH & ORS. versus VADOR NICHOLAS MATHIAS & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 737 · Decided: 20-01-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-·- -
- ----------------------------------
DISTI. COUNCIL OF UNITED BASEL MISSION 
CHURCH & ORS. 
v . . 
•.et·,;.~. \·1 .V ADOR NICHOLAS MATHIAS & ORS . 
• ,.ff~ ''' -~~· 
JANUARY 20,' 1988 
[MURARI MOHON DU'IT AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.I 
Challenging resolution proposing merger of United Basel Mission 
Church (UBMC) of South Kanara and Coorg with the Church of South 
India (C.S.I.), as void, illegal and ultra vires the provisions of Religious 
Societies Act, !880. · 
The respondents, members of the United Basel Mission Church 
(U.B.M.C.) of South Kanara and Coorg, instituted a suit in the Court· 
A 
B 
c 
of Munsif, Mangalore, praying for a declaration that the resolution 
dated May 9, 1961, passed hi the extraordinary meeting of the District 
D 
Church Council of UBMC of South Kanara and Coorg, proposing the 
merger of UB~IC of South Kanara and Coorg with the Church of South 
India (C.S.I.). was v·oid, illegal and ultra vires the constitution of the 
UBM C and also the provisions of the Religious Societies Act, 1880, and 
not' binding on the respondents/plaintiffs or other members of the 
UBMC of South Kanara and Coorg • .The suit was .contested by the 
E 
appellants defendants. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that 
(i) the suit was maintainable but the respondents were not entitled to file 
the suit in a representative character, representing the UBMC ofSoutb 
Kanara & Coorg, (ii) there was no fundamental difference between the 
UBMC and CSI, and (iii) the impugned resolution was legal and valid._ 
The respondents filed appeal against the judgrnent of the .trial court ... F 
which was dismissed hy the Additional Civil Judge, who,. however. held 
that the respondents were entitled to file the suit In a representative 
character. The respondents preferred a second· appeal to the High 
Court against the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge. 
The High Court (Single Judge) took'· a contrary view and allowed the 
appeal, holding that there were fundamental differences in doctrine. 
G 
faith, tradition, heritage and practices between UBMC and CSI; and 
the resolution impugned was illegal and void. Aggrieved by the decision 
of .the High Court, the appellants moved this Court for relief by special 
leave. 
Allowing the appeal. the Court 
737 
H 
738 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11988] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: It was well-established that the dispute as to the right of 
worship was one of a civil nature within the meaning of section 9 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure and a suit was maintainable for the vindication 
or determination of such a right. It must he made clear that maintaina-
bility of the suit would not permit a Court to consider the soundness or 
B 
c 
pq1priety of any religious doctrine, faith or rituals. The scope of 
enquiry in such a suit was limited to those aspects only that had a direct 
hearing on the question of right of worship, and with a view to consider-
ing such a question, the Court might examine the doctrines, faith, 
rituals and practices for the purpose of ascertaining whether the same 
interfered with the right of worship of the aggrieved parties. In view of 
section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the enquiry should he confined 
to the disputes of a civil nature. Any dispute, which was not of a civil 
nature should he excluded from consideration. l745B, D-F] 
Both the churches were Protestant Churches. The fundamental 
doctrines, faith and belief appeared to he the same. Both UBMC and 
CSI believed in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God the Redeamer of 
D 
the World. Both also believed that man was saved from sin through 
grace in Jesus Christ. Both believed in the Holy Spirit and in the 
Supreme Power of' Holy Spirit and .that there should he free access of 
man to God. l745G-H; 746AJ 
U.B.M.C. was a Presbyterian Church and the respondents did 
E 
not believe in the concept of Episcopacy or apostolic succession, 
associated with historic Episcopacy. UBMC was opposed to Episco-
pacy, but Episcopacy, adopted by the CSI was not that historic Episco-
F 
pacy, but historic Episcopacy in a constitutional form. The CSI believed 
;.
that in all ordinations and consecrationsthe true ordainer and consec-
rater was God. From all this, the irresisti~le conclusion was that there~·
was neither apostolic succession nor historical Episcopacy in CSI as 
:..';
contended on behalf of the respondents. l746B-C, E-FJ 
The respondents placed much reliance on the universal prie-
. sthood. That was said 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.