Full Text
Date of Decision: 21st November, 2019 CS(OS) No.612/2018
BAPTIST CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATION & ANR. .... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Vineet Chadha & Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advs.
Through: Mr. Sandeep Aggarwal, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Sumit Ahuja & Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advs.
CPC) & IA No.16323/2019 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC).
JUDGMENT
1. The counsel for the plaintiffs and the senior counsel for the defendant were heard on 19th November, 2019 and have been further heard today.
2. The two plaintiffs viz. Baptist Church Trust Association (BCTA) and Baptist Union of North India (Regd.) (BUNI) instituted this suit, pleading that (i) the plaintiff no.1 BCTA is a Section 25 Company and the plaintiff no.2 BUNI is the Provincial Body of plaintiff no.1 BCTA and registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860; the main objective of plaintiff no.2 BUNI is to look after the management and control of all the properties owned by plaintiff no.1 BCTA, Baptist Missionary Society (BMS) and Baptist Missionary Society Corporation (BMSC), as well as to utilize 2019:DHC:6230 the same for the various educational institutions, Churches etc.; (ii) BMS through BMSC owned several properties in India including the property bearing No.5, Saraswati Marg, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi and the name of BMS is duly mutated in the revenue records as the owner of the said property; (iii) BMS, vide Deed of Appointment of New Trustees appointed plaintiff no.1 BCTA, a trustee in place of the said BMSC in respect of several immovable properties, to be held by the plaintiff no.1 BCTA, for the same objectives and purposes for which the said properties were earlier held by BMSC as trustee; (iv) by virtue of the said Deed of Appointment, plaintiff no.1 BCTA is owner of the Karol Bagh property aforesaid and where a Church viz. Baptist Church Karol Bagh is being run and the said Church is affiliated with plaintiff no.2 BUNI; (v) the plaintiff no.2 BUNI is the appointing authority vested with the power and authority to appoint Pastor of the Church, who is empowered to manage the day-to-day affairs of the Church and to maintain and take care of the same; (vi) the members of the Church elect a Committee known as the Caretaker Committee or the Deacons Committee, of which the Pastor is the Chairman, and the said Committee, under the guidance and supervision of the Pastor, takes care of the day-to-day affairs of the Church; (vii) the plaintiff no.2 BUNI, for several decades has been appointing the Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church and been replacing, removing and / or transferring the Pastor; (viii) on 14th December, 2007, plaintiff no.2 BUNI transferred the defendant from Palwal and appointed the defendant as the new Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church; (ix) on 18th February, 2009, the plaintiff no.2 BUNI asked the defendant to withdraw from the Karol Bagh Church; (x) however on request of the Deacons and Congregation of the Karol Bagh Church to plaintiff no.2 BUNI to reconsider the said decision, plaintiff no.2 BUNI acceded to the request and allowed the defendant to continue as the Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church; (xi) on 21st July, 2012, one Prem Chand Indriyas filed a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi against one Clement Kotti and others including the defendant herein; (xii) the defendant in his written statement in the said suit admitted that the defendant is the current Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church, having been appointed by the plaintiff no.2 BUNI; (xiii) on 15th January, 2016, the plaintiff no.2 BUNI formed a three member Committee with the defendant as its Chairperson, to deal with all matters concerning the safety, security and proper maintenance of the entire compound of the Karol Bagh Church including the school therein, and to take action against encroachment / nuisance in the said property and to institute legal proceedings to protect the said property; (xiv) the plaintiff no.1 BCTA recovered possession of a property from the aforesaid Prem Chand Indriyas and decided to utilize the same for purposes of the Karol Bagh Church, and the keys of the property were entrusted to the defendant as Pastor of the said Church; (xv) on 9th January, 2017, the Secretary of the Deacons Committee informed the plaintiff no.1 BCTA of the complaint lodged by the other members of the Committee against the defendant; (xvi) on 16th other members of the Deacons Committee informed the plaintiff no.1 BCTA of the acts of misbehavior and misconduct of the defendant and called upon the plaintiffs to interfere; (xvii) on 21st defendant assured the plaintiff no.1 BCTA that the defendant has no intention to encroach on the Karol Bagh Church property or to use any part of it as his residence or otherwise; (xviii) on 22nd February, 2017, the plaintiffs received a complaint from around 84 members of the Karol Bagh Church of illegalities being committed by the defendant as Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church; (xix) the defendant otherwise has been seeking permission from the plaintiff no.2 BUNI for doing various acts with respect to the Karol Bagh Church and the plaintiffs have been issuing instructions to the defendant; (xx) the plaintiffs were apprised of the fact that the defendant was implicated in an FIR, and the plaintiff no.2 BUNI sought explanation from the defendant and the defendant sent his response to the plaintiff no.2 BUNI refuting all allegations against him; (xxi) the plaintiff no.1 BCTA on 19th October, 2018 nominated a three member Committee pertaining to the entire compound of the Karol Bagh Church; (xxii) vide letter dated 15th November, 2018 of the plaintiff no.2 BUNI to the defendant, the defendant was placed under suspension with immediate effect and directed to cease delivery of any services in the Karol Bagh Church and further informed that the plaintiff no.2 BUNI had appointed Rev. Anil B. Lall as the new Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church; and, (xxiii) the defendant however was interfering with the new Pastor taking charge of the Karol Bagh Church, and claiming that it was the Deacons Committee which was the appointing authority.
3. On the aforesaid pleas, the plaintiffs have sought the reliefs of,
(i) declaration that the defendant has ceased to be a Pastor and
Chairman of the Karol Bagh Church; (ii) permanent injunction restraining the defendant from (a) interfering in the management and working of the Karol Bagh Church, (b) creating hindrance to Rev. Anil B. Lall from carrying out duties as Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church; (c) creating hinderance in the ingress and egress of the plaintiffs, employees and worshippers to the Karol Bagh Church; (d) dealing with the Karol Bagh Church property, and, (e) obstructing the peaceful use and enjoyment of the Karol Bagh Church; and, (iii) mandatory injunction directing the defendant to (A) vacate the premises of the Karol Bagh Church, (B) remove his lock from the gates of the Karol Bagh Church, and, (C) handover keys thereof to the plaintiff.
4. The suit came up first before this Court on 29th November, 2018, when summons of the suit and notice of the application for interim relief were issued to the defendant for 5th December, 2018. The defendant appeared and inter alia contended that the plaintiffs had nothing to do with the Karol Bagh Church, and the said Church was managed by a Committee of eleven members, in turn appointed by 113 members of the Karol Bagh Church.
5. Vide ad-interim order dated 5th December, 2018, the following directions were issued: “(A) Neither the new Pastor claimed to have been appointed by the plaintiffs nor the defendant to interfere in the faith seekers visiting the Church and praying therein; (B) Neither of the aforesaid two Pastors to interfere in other carrying out functions with respect to the Church including of conducting prayers, with the new Pastor claimed to have been appointed conducting prayers on Sundays between 9.00 AM to
10.00 AM and the defendant conducting prayers between 10.00 AM to 11.00 AM in the morning;
(C) Similarly, on all other days as well as on other hours of
(D) As far as Christmas prayers are concerned, informed to be between 7.00 PM to 9.00 PM in the evening, the time be similarly divided, with the prayers between 7.00 PM to 8.00 PM being conducted by the new Pastor and the prayers between
8.00 PM to 9.00 PM being conducted by the defendant; and, (E) Neither of the two Pastors to take any precipitating action affecting the Church or its properties or causing any harm or loss thereto.”
6. The defendant has filed a written statement, pleading that (i) the present suit is barred by Section 10 of the CPC; (ii) the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiffs of the present suit is the removal of defendant from post of Pastor and Chairman of the Karol Bagh Church; (iii) prior to the institution of the present suit, the defendant as Pastor and Chairman of the Karol Bagh Church along with the Secretary of the Church have filed a civil suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for declaration and permanent injunction against both the plaintiffs and three others in respect of the same cause of action; (iv) in the said previously instituted suit, the plaintiffs and others impleaded as defendants have been sought to be restrained from interfering with the affairs of the Karol Bagh Church and for declaration as null and void of the letter dated 6th November, 2018 removing the defendant as Pastor and Chairman; (v) the Karol Bagh Church was established in the year 1916 and presently has 130 families whose members are members of the General Body of the Church, with the head of each family representing the other members of the family; (vi) out of the said General Body, a core group of 11 members are elected and the said core group is known as the Deacons Committee; the Pastor of the Church is elected by the General Body with two-third majority, and the Pastor becomes the Chairman of the Deacons Committee and administers the charge with the assistance of the members of the Deacons Committee; all this is in accordance with the Constitution of the Karol Bagh Church; (vii) neither of the plaintiffs have any role in appointment of any members of the Deacons Committee or in appointment / selection of Pastor / Chairman, nor pay any salary or other remuneration to the Pastor or the Deacons Committee of the Karol Bagh Church; (viii) the plaintiffs are neither the appointing nor the removing authority of the members of the Deacons Committee and do not contribute financially also to the Karol Bagh Church; (ix) the defendant was appointed by the Deacons Committee vide meeting of the Karol Bagh Church held on 19th February, 2009 and his appointment was confirmed by the General House of the Karol Bagh Church on 29th March, 2009; (x) though the Karol Bagh Church was earlier affiliated to the plaintiff no.2 BUNI, but the said affiliation did not mean that the Karol Bagh Church had come under supervision or control of either of the plaintiffs; (xi) the General Body of the Karol Bagh Church, vide Resolution dated 18th November, 2018 has withdrawn its affiliation to plaintiff no.2 BUNI;
(xii) it is the two plaintiffs who are trying to usurp the property of the
Karol Bagh Church; and, (xiii) the defendant was informed by the Secretary of the Karol Bagh Church that the suspension by plaintiff no.2 BUNI of the defendant was not accepted by the Karol Bagh Church and its Deacons Committee, and the defendant was asked to continue to provide his services as Pastor / Chairman of the Church.
7. The counsel for the plaintiff has argued that, (a) the plaintiff no.1 BCTA is the owner of the property of the Karol Bagh Church; (b) the plaintiff no.2 BUNI has authority to oversee / manage the properties and functions of plaintiff no.1 BCTA; (c) the defendant was appointed Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church by the plaintiff no.2 BUNI; attention in this regard is invited to page no.8 of Part III-A file being a letter dated 14th December, 2007 of the plaintiff no.2 BUNI to the Secretary and all members of Deacons Committee of Karol Bagh Church, informing them of appointment of defendant as Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church; (d) attention is invited to page no.16 of Part III-A file, being the letter dated 19th February, 2009 of the Baptist Church Karol Bagh to the plaintiff no.2 BUNI, asking the plaintiff no.2 BUNI to cancel its letter dated 19th February, 2009 withdrawing the defendant as Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church; (e) attention is invited to page no.20 of Part III-A file being the letter dated 11th July, 2012 of the Karol Bagh Church through the defendant to plaintiff no.2 BUNI, apologizing for having hurt the sentiments of plaintiff no.2 BUNI; (f) attention is invited to page no.26 of the Part III-A file, being a copy of the written statement of the defendant dated 20th August, 2012 in the suit filed by Prem Chand Indriyas aforesaid, and particularly to page no.32 thereof where the defendant pleaded “being appointed by Baptist Union of North India, having registered office at 13, Raj Niwas Marg, Delhi”; (g) attention is invited to page no.79 of Part III- A file, being the letter dated 17th June, 2016 of plaintiff no.1 BCTA to the defendant entrusting to the defendant as Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church, the keys of the portion of Karol Bagh Church possession whereof was recovered, bearing the signatures of the defendant of receipt of keys; (h) the defence of the defendant in the written statement in this suit is contrary to the defence on oath of the defendant in the written statement to the suit filed by Prem Chand Indriyas; and, (i) Deacons Committee is a body of members of a church and has no legal entity.
8. Per contra, the senior counsel for the defendant has argued that,
(i) the present suit is not maintainable as the Karol Bagh Church is not a party thereto; (ii) in the previously instituted suit by the defendant and the Karol Bagh Church against plaintiff no.2 BUNI, its Secretary / Treasurer as well as the Secretary / Treasurer of plaintiff no.1 BCTA, the questions as are sought to be raised in the present suit are subjudice and Section 10 of the CPC applies; (iii) attention is invited to the plaint in the previously instituted suit as well as in the plaint in the present suit; (iv) the plaintiffs, in the garb of taking orders of injunction against the defendant, are wanting to usurp the property of the Karol Bagh Church without making the Karol Bagh Church a party to this suit; (v) the letter dated 14th December, 2007 of plaintiff no.2 BUNI claimed to be the letter of appointment by plaintiff no.2 BUNI of the defendant, is addressed to the Secretary and members of the Deacons Committee of Karol Bagh Church and only with a copy to the defendant; it is further pointed out that the said letter is by “BUNI Adhoc Committee / Karol Baptist Church” and that it does not use the word “appoint” but uses the word “post”; (vi) the plaintiff no.2 BUNI was looking after all the Churches; (vii) the plaintiff no.2 BUNI, vide letter dated 19th February, 2009 had terminated the appointment of the defendant and to which the Karol Bagh Church had protested; (viii) however the Karol Bagh Church, vide its letter dated 29th March, 2009 to the defendant at page no.27 of Part III-B file, appointed / ordained the defendant as the sole Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church; (ix) attention is invited to the minutes of the Annual General Meeting held on 29th March, 2009 of the members of the Karol Bagh Church, at page no.28 of Part III-B file, approving the appointment of the defendant; (x) the defendant since then is the Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church, under authority of the General Body of the Karol Bagh Church, and not under the plaintiff no.2 BUNI; (xi) attention is invited to page 11 of Part III-B file being the English translation of the “Constitution” of the Karol Bagh Church, particularly to the provision with respect to the Pastor of the Church, to contend that the power to appoint Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church is of the members of the General Body of the Karol Bagh Church;
(xii) it is argued that there are other proceedings also against the plaintiffs of usurpation of Churches in India; (xiii) attention is invited to a reply (copy of the reply is handed over in the Court and taken on record to be tagged to Part II-A file) claimed to have been filed to IA No.11395/2019, and to the letter dated 21st October, 2009 of Karol Bagh Church to the plaintiff no.2 BUNI appended thereto recording that the plaintiff no.2 BUNI had no right to interfere in the internal administration of the Karol Bagh Church; and, (xiv) it is contended that the cause of action of this suit and the previously instituted suit is the same.
9. The senior counsel for the defendant also wants to argue more with respect to the rights of members of the General Body of the Karol Bagh Church vis-à-vis the rights of the plaintiffs, but the need to hear on the said aspect is not felt as the present lis is only between the plaintiffs and the defendant and the defendant does not claim to have any rights in the Karol Bagh Church save as Pastor thereof, and the rights if any of the members of the General Body of the Karol Bagh Church, if at all having any independent existence or status, cannot be adjudicated in their absence. The controversy has to be confined only between the plaintiffs and the defendant.
10. The counsel for the plaintiffs, in rejoinder, besides urging that the stand of the defendant in the present suit is materially different from that in the written statement to the suit filed by Prem Chand Indriyas, has also drawn attention to page 135 of Part III-A file being the letter dated 24th July, 2017 of the Karol Bagh Church to the plaintiff no.2 BUNI, reporting of the erection of unauthorized sign board by another on the property of Karol Bagh Church owned by plaintiff no.1 BCTA and seeking direction / permission from plaintiff no.2 BUNI qua action to be taken with respect thereto. It is argued that the same shows the falsity of the arguments of the defendant, and that the Karol Bagh Church is admitting plaintiff no.1 BCTA to be the owner of its property and seeking directions for management of the Church. It is further contended that the cases against the plaintiffs, referred to by the senior counsel for the defendant, have been stayed by this Court. It is also pointed out that the defendant, in violation of the interim orders in this suit, is obstructing with the functioning of Rev. Anil B. Lall as the Pastor of the Church and is issuing contradictory instructions.
11. The senior counsel for the defendant has drawn attention to page 29 of Part III-B file, of withdrawal of affiliation by the Karol Bagh Church.
12. I have considered the rival contentions for the purposes of interim relief claimed in the present suit.
13. As opined by me hereinabove, the present dispute is confined between the plaintiffs and the defendant and it is not for adjudication in the present suit, even on a prima facie view, whether the Karol Bagh Church is under administration and control of plaintiff no.2 BUNI or whether the property of the Karol Bagh Church is owned by plaintiff no.1 BCTA. Suffice it is to state, that while the plaintiffs claiming their rights aforesaid have sought to terminate the authority of the defendant, the defendant, though not denying his initial posting as Pastor to the Karol Bagh Church being in furtherance of the letter dated 14th December, 2007 of plaintiff no.2 BUNI to members of the Karol Bagh Church, contends that his posting / appointment in pursuance thereto came to an end in 2009, and since whereafter he is functioning as Pastor under authority of the members of the General Body of the Karol Bagh Church. The defendant otherwise does not claim any independent right to continue as the Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church, except under authority of the members of the General Body of the Karol Bagh Church. The defendant himself not claiming any right to continue as Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church under authority of the plaintiffs, returning a finding to the effect that the defendant is not entitled to continue as Pastor or to perform any functions with respect to the Karol Bagh Church or its properties under authority of the plaintiffs poses no difficulty.
14. Axiomatically, grant of interim injunction restraining the defendant from exercising any power as Pastor or otherwise with respect to Karol Bagh Church or its properties and / or from interfering with the management and functioning under authority of the plaintiffs or as appointee / delegatee of the plaintiffs, also poses no difficulty.
15. I may however state that prima facie, no merit is found in the claim of the defendant of Karol Bagh Church having any existence independent of the plaintiffs and / or of the authority of the defendant as Pastor of the Karol Bagh Church having come to an end in 2009 and the defendant having continued thereafter independently of the plaintiffs. I say so because:
16. Moreover, the defendant having been inducted in the Karol Bagh Church as a Pastor under authority from plaintiff no.2 BUNI, cannot without first surrendering all that he was given charge of, challenge the authority of plaintiff no.2 BUNI. The principles of estoppel would apply.
17. The plaintiffs have thus made out a case for grant of ex pate relief.
18. The defendant, till the disposal of the suit, is restrained from (i) exercising any rights as Pastor or otherwise of the Karol Bagh Church and its properties under authority from the plaintiffs or either of the plaintiffs; and, (ii) interfering in any manner whatsoever with the exercise of rights by the plaintiffs or any of the plaintiffs with respect to the management and control of Karol Bagh Church and its properties.
19. All the applications are disposed of in terms of above.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. NOVEMBER 21, 2019 „gsr‟..