MOHAN M. BASELIOS MARTHOMA MATHEWS LI AND ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 876 · Decided: 04-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MOHAN M. BASELIOS MAR THOMA MA THEWS Li AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS: 
APRJL 4, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
" 
"i 
( 
Article 226-Writ petition involving disputeif. .iillestions of rights and 
C title to properties-Dispute between religious gro~ps' 'regarding ri¢hts and 
privileges of Catholics cum Malankara Metropolitan of Ma/ankarlf Church 
and properties of Church-Writ Petition by one group seeking a writ of 
mandamus to State authorities to provide police protection to them for 
exercise of their rights against private respondents-:-.Observation of High 
D . Court on merits of the case regarding rights and title of parties-Held, 
disputed questions in regard to title of the properties or the right of one 
group against the other in respect of the managemt/nt of such a large number 
of Churches could not have been the subject mait~.,tfor ~termination by a 
writ Court under Article 226 in the garb of gtioi(d}police prqtection-The 
High Court committed a manifest error in going into the disputed questions 
E of title and rights of a particular group to manage the Churches, in exercise 
of its writ jurisdiction, particularly, when suc,h questions are pending 
consideration before competent Civil Courts. 
·-
Article I 36 read with Article 226-Question of maintainability of writ 
F petition filed before High Court-Held: while. exercising jurisdiction under 
Article 136, Supreme Court can go into the question whether writ petition 
could have been entertained by High Court, particularly, when appeal is 
continuation of original proceedings-Appeal. 
Appellants filed a writ petition before the High Collrt praying, inter alia, 
G for a writ of mandamus directing respondents • .t~:~i the ~te authorities,· 
"to give effective and adequate police protection to ~oneiS to exercise their 
rights, duties and privileges as The Catholicos cum Malankara Metropolitan 
of the Malankara Church with respect to the certain Parishbs and Institutions " 
of the Malankara Church without any theat or obstructionrt'rom respondents 
H 
876 
-
i-..-
1 
.... 
_, 
.... 
.? 
t 
). .r 
MOHANM.BASELIOSMARTIIOMAMATHEWSLi v. STATEOFKERALA 
877 
5 to 13." Claims were also raised over the properties of the Churches in A 
relation whereto about 200 civil suits were pending in different courts in the 
State.:- The High Court went into the merits of the matter and holding, inter 
alia, ttlat it cannot be said that contesting respondents had no right to manage 
the properties or that petitioner no.I had any right over the Churches which 
were parties in the case, declined to issue the writ of mandamus as prayed 
for. Aggrieved, the writ petitioners filed the present appeals. 
B 
During the pendency of the appeals, appellant no.I resigned from the 
post o~atholicos of Malankara Metropolitan, and the application for 
substitution filed by his successor was opposed by the respondents contending 
that qu4)jtion with regard to the validity or otherwise of election of Catholicos c 
was pen\ling consideration in a suit. 
.. 
Disposing of the appeals and dismissing the impleadment application, 
the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Disputed questions in regard to title of the properties or D 
the right of one group against the other in respect of the management of such 
a large number of Churches could not have been the subject matter for• 
determination by a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia 
in the garb of grant of police protection to one or the other appellants. 
[Para I2] [883-D] 
E 
P.R. Murlidharan & Ors. v. Swami Dharamananda Theertha Padar & 
Ors., [2096) 4 SCC 50I, relied on. 
" 
1.2. The High Court committed a manifest error in going into the 
disputed question of title as also the disputed question in regard to the rights 
of a particular group to manage the .Churches, in exercise of its writ F 
jurisdiction, particularly, when such questions are pending consideration 
before competent Civil Courts. This is more so in view of the fact that even a 
large number of persons who have filed different suits in different courts of 
law were not parties before the High Court in the writ petition and, thus, any 
observation and ~ndings of the High Court would otherwise also not be binding 
on them. Any otirervation made by the High Court should not influence the G 
Courts concerned in arriving at their independent decisions and in respect 
I 
thereof, all conten,tion of the parties shall remain 

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