Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Stop the futile exercise about the verdict of S.C

Expand Messages
  • Dr
    The forum members are repeatedly bringing up the issue of SC judgment of 1995 again and again. Why don t we stop the discussion, the reason is simple but
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 30, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      The forum members are repeatedly bringing up the issue of SC judgment
      of 1995 again and again. Why don't we stop the discussion, the
      reason is simple but painful!

      Read the quotes from SC judgment 1995 (20-6-1995)

      "We are, however, of the opinion that in this suit no deceleration
      can be granted affecting the rights of Parish churches in their
      absence not it can be declared that the properties held by Malankara
      Parish churches vest in the Catholicos or the Malankara Metropolitan
      or the Metropolitan of the concerned diocese, as the case may be." (p
      66 of the original judgment 1995). (2). No list of parish properties
      is enclosed nor are the particulars of the alleged intermeddling
      mentioned in the plaint (p 67). (3). It also appears that each of
      these parish churches/associations has its won constitution; where
      under the general body of the parish is declared to be the final
      authority in temporal matters. All this is mentioned only to
      emphasise that in the absence of the parish churches and proper
      pleadings and proof, no declaration touching the parish churches can
      be granted in these suits (p.. 69).

      The police protection case (O.P. No. 22946 of 2002) was short cut to
      get at the parish churches, which were not party to case.

      Findings in the Police Protection Case (28-1-2003).

      The rights of the parish churches were not determined by the SC in
      the 1995 decision. Thus, it cannot be said that the contesting
      respondents (Catholicos Mar Baseliose Thomas I) have no right to manage their properties or the the 1st petitioner (Catholicos Mar Marthomas Mathews II) has any right over the churches which were not parties in the case (brackets added for clarity) p.27.. (2). All the churches listed in Exihibit P-4 (list of 1064 churhces) having not been impleaded as parties, no order affecting the right of those who are not before the court can be passed (p. 27).

      Findings of the SLP in the SC (4-4-2007).

      "It would be an abuse of the process for a writ petitioner
      (Catholicos Marthomas Mathews II) to approach the High Court under
      Article 226 of the consideration seeking a writ of mandamus directing
      the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a
      property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate
      civil court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature
      should be resisted by the High Court."

      There are other observations which IOC will try to cling to which are
      only declarations that cannot be executed. In short, fresh cases are
      necessary to establish civil rights in each parish. This is the hard
      reality, no matter whether you like it or not. Therefore, the recent
      cry to implement SC judgment is again a request in guise to get at
      the parish churches and properties. Let IOCs cry loud and loud,
      however, authorities now know the fact of the matter.

      Fr. Mani Rajan
      =================================================
      From the desk of moderators.

      For more details of the verdicts, please visit our resource section:-
      http://www.socmnet.org/Resource_Judjments.htm
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.