AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
Facts
The respondents, as members of the Church of the East in India, filed a suit in a representative capacity seeking an injunction to restrain an election scheduled for 9 December 1962. The application for interim injunction was rejected and the election was held on 9 December 1962. In or about 1963 the respondents amended the plaint to seek a declaration that the elections held on 9 December 1962 were invalid and impleaded defendants 15 to 89, including the Central Trustees who were defendants 15, 16 and 19; according to the Constitution of the Church four Central Trustees are elected, and because one had died before taking charge only three Central Trustees were made parties. On 12 February 1964 the appellant applied for appointment of a receiver and for directions to the receiver to take charge of the properties of the Church. The application was granted on 19 February 1965 and the court appointed two advocates as Receivers. Against the appointment of the Receiver the appellant filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge of Trichur. The Subordinate Judge vacated the order appointing the Receiver. The respondents went in revision to the High Court, which reversed the appellate court and confirmed the trial court, restoring the direction to appoint the two receivers and take charge of the properties. This appeal was filed against that order. The judgment further records that, according to the Constitution of the Church, elections of trustees are held every three years and new trustees were elected in 1966, though the respondents did not admit the validity of that election. The appellant filed a petition in the trial court that, since nothing had been alleged against the new trustees, the order appointing receivers should be set aside and the properties handed over to the new trustees. The trial court dismissed that petition and a revision was filed in the High Court. The High Court found no error of jurisdiction and dismissed the revision, directing that its dismissal would not affect the rights of the newly elected trustees to move the trial court for possession of the properties from the receiver. That order was passed on 13 December 1967 and no appeal was filed against it in this Court. The trial court, while dismissing the respondents' suit, ordered that the receivers who took charge at the fag end of the trial would continue, as there was already a direction from the High Court that the new trustees could seek possession from the receivers by satisfying the court that they were validly ejected trustees. An appeal against the dismissal of the suit was filed before the Subordinate Judge of Trichur, who allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower court so far as it was against the defendants and dismissed the suit in toto, with parties to bear their costs throughout, and directed that in view of the High Court direction the Receivers would continue. The respondents thereafter filed a second appeal against the dismissal of their suit in the High Court, which was pending.
Law Points
The legal questions before the Court were whether the order appointing receivers automatically gets discharged once the suit in which they were appointed is dismissed; whether, in the circumstances, the appeal against the order appointing the Receiver had become infructuous because the suit itself had been dismissed and there was no separate order of the High Court in the pending second appeal continuing the receivers; and how proceedings regarding retention or removal of the receivers were to be dealt with.
Acts & Articles
Not discussed in this judgment.
Judgments Referred
Not discussed in this judgment.
Obiter Dicta
The Court observed that whatever proceedings have to be taken in respect of the retention or removal of the receivers will have to be taken elsewhere.
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio is that once the suit in which receivers are appointed is dismissed, the order appointing the receivers automatically gets discharged, and an appeal directed only against the order appointing receivers becomes infructuous where the suit has been dismissed and there is no separate order continuing the receivers.
Final Ruling
The appeal was dismissed without costs. The Supreme Court held that the appeal had become infructuous because the suit in which the receivers were appointed had been dismissed and there was no separate order passed by the High Court in the second appeal pending before it to continue the receivers; any proceedings regarding retention or removal of the receivers were to be taken elsewhere.
Plain-Language Gist
The case concerned a church election dispute and church properties over which receivers had been appointed during a suit. After the suit was dismissed, the Supreme Court said the order appointing receivers automatically came to an end, so the appeal about the receivers no longer had anything to decide. It dismissed the appeal without costs, leaving any question about the receivers to be raised in other proceedings.
AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment text before relying on it in practice.
Judgment
Jaganmohan Reddy. J.
This appeal is against an order appointing Receiver in the following circumstances. A suit had been filed by the respondents as members of the Church of the East in India in their representative capacity for an injunction that the election which was to have been held on the 9th December, 1962 should not be held. An application for interim injunction, however, was rejected and the election was held on 9th December, 1962. In or about 1963 the respondents amended the plaint with an additional prayer for a declaration that the elections held on 9-12-1962 were invalid. They also impleaded defendants 15 to 89 including the Central Trustees who were defendants 15, 16 and 19. It may be mentioned here that according to he Constitution of the Church four Central Trustees are elected and of the four one had died before he took charge and that is why only 3 persons namely defendants 15, 16 and 19 who were the Central Trustees were made parties. On the 12th February, 1964 the appellant made an, application for appointment of a receiver and for directions to the Receiver to take charge of the properties of the Church, This application was granted on 19th February, 1965 and the Court appointed two advocates as Receivers, against the appointment of the Receiver the appellant filed an appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Trichur. The Subordinate Judge vacated the order appointing the Receiver. The respondents went in revision to the High, Court. The High Court reversed the order of the appellate court and confirmed that of the trial court with the result that the direction to appoint the two receivers and to take charge of the properties was restored. As against that order this appeal has been filed.
It is alleged that according to the Constitution of the Church elections of the trustees have to be held every three years and accordingly new trustees were elected in 1966. The validity of this election, however, is not admitted by the respondents. Be that as it may, a petition was filed by the appellants in the trial court that since nothing has been alleged against the new trustees the order appointing the receivers should be set aside and the properties of the Church handed over to the new trustees. The trial court dismissed that petition, as against which a revision petition was filed in the High Court. In that revision petition the High Court was of the view that there was no error of jurisdiction. Accordingly while dismissing it, it further directed that-
The dismissal of the revision petition will not in any way affect the rights of the newly elected trustees to move an application in the trial court for getting possession of the properties from the receiver.
This order was passed on 13th, December, 1967 against which no appeal has been filed in this Court. In view of this order the trial court while dismissing the suit of the respondents passed the following order : -
The receivers appointed in this case who took charge at the fag end of the trial will continue as there is already a direction from the High Court that the new trustees can seek for possession from the receivers by satisfying the court that they are validly ejected trustees.
It appears to us that this direction by the trial court was made pursuant to the directions of the High Court dated 13 December, 1967 to which we have referred earlier. An appeal against the dismissal of the suit was filed before the Subordinate Judge of Trichur who allowed the appeal. The order in that appeal is in the following terms:-
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower court so far as it is against the defendants is hereby set aside and the suit-is dismissed in toto. In the circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their costs throughout. In view of the direction of the High Court referred to in the lower court judgment, the Receivers will continue.
The reference to the directions of the High Court referred to in this order is the order made by the trial court in conformity with the order Of the High Court dated 13th december, 1967. Thereafter the respondents filed a second appeal against the dismissal of their suit in the High Court which we are informed is pending in that court.
Now it is clear to us from the above proceedings that when once the suit is dismissed by the Sub Judge the order appointing the receivers will automatically get discharged. But in this case because of the order of the High Court dated 13-12-1967 whether that was properly understood by the trial court directed the retention of the receivers which direction was maintained by the first appellate court while allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit. Whatever proceedings have to be taken in respect of the retention or removal of the receivers will have to be taken elsewhere. In so far as this appeal is concerned it has become infructuous because the suit itself in which the receivers were appointed is dismissed and there is no separate order passed by the High Court in the second appeal which is pending before that Court to continue the receivers,
In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed without costs.