Knanaya Community's Endogamy Not Essential Religious Practice, Excommunicating Members Marrying Outsiders Violates Rights: Kerala High Court

Justice Easwaran S. dismissed the appeals filed by the Archeparchy of Kottayam and the Knanaya Catholic Congress, and upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court.

A Society named the Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy had filed a suit before the Additional Sub-Court, Kottayam and the same was decreed declaring that a member of the Archeparchy of Kottayam or the Knanaya Community will not forfeit his/her membership in the archeparchy by marrying another Catholic from any other Diocese.

The Sub-Court had also issued a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Archbishop and the Archeparchy from terminating a membership of any member for marrying a Catholic from another Diocese.

Additionally, a mandatory injunction was also issued to then to provide equal rights and facilities to those members of the Knanaya Community who wishes to marry other Catholics and to re-admit the members along with their spouses and children who memberships were terminated for marrying from outside the Community.

This was challenged in appeal before the Additional District Court, Kottayam and the appeals were dismissed. Aggrieved, the present Second Appeal was preferred before the High Court. The appellants had raised numerous contentions, including that the suit was barred by limitation, it is bad for non-joinder of the entire Knanaya community, etc.

In the 183-page judgment, the High Court had framed, considered and answered 36 substantial questions of law and went on to uphold the findings of the courts below.

Suit is maintainable

The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the suit was not maintainable as per Section 9 of the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 since it was preferred by the Society. It remarked that the Society was represented by the President and that the other plaintiffs were impleaded in their personal capacity.

The contention that the Society has operation only in and around Kottayam and cannot sue on behalf of the Knanaya community was also not accepted since the Court found that this issue was never considered by the courts below and therefore, it would be inappropriate for the High Court to do so.

Order 1 Rule 8 CPC complied with

The Court held that the requirement under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was complied with since the plaintiffs had taken out notice at the trial stage as well as the appellate stage.

It was also noted that several persons of the Community as well as the Knanaya Catholic Congress got impleaded in the appeals and therefore, it cannot be said that the procedural requirement was not complied with.

Plaintiffs have cause of action

Though a contention was raised by the appellants that the plaintiffs did not have the cause of action required to maintain the suit, the Court refused to accept the same. It remarked that the High Court cannot consider the same at the appellate stage when the same was not raised before the trial court.

Further, it was also observed that since the individual plaintiffs, who were members of the Knanaya Community that married outside, were present in the party array, the suit cannot be rejected on the ground that the first plaintiff Society did not have any cause of action.

“It is beyond cavil that the plaintiffs 2 to 4 derived their right for membership on the church by their birth. This fact is admitted. Under what authority do the defendants 1 and 2 contend, that membership is lost because of marrying a non Knanaya person is not shown. At any rate, Ext.B1 bye law was issued only on 12.11.2008 (w.e.f. 6.1.2009). The said bye law can never be the determinative factor to decide the fate of membership derived by birth. At any rate, the refusal of the religious hierarchy under Ext.B19 to uphold the practice of endogamy leads to an irresistible conclusion that plaintiffs cannot be non-suited on the plea that they do not possess the requisite cause of action to maintain the suit. Thus, this court finds that the plea of the appellants that the plaintiffs 2 to 4 do not have the cause of action to maintain the suit is untenable and hence rejected,” the Court remarked.

Knanaya Community need not be made a party to the suit, Church represents the community

A contention was raised that the Knanya Community was made a party in the suit and therefore, the effect of the decree affects the community at large. This was also rejected by the Court as it felt that since the Church was made a party, this was sufficient as the Church represents the community.

The Court observed:

“the learned Senior Counsel did not address this Court on what capacity the community should be made a party and who should represent the community. Therefore, this Court finds that the contention regarding the non-impleadment of the munity is only raised for an ornamental purpose without stating as to how a suit with the community as a defendant could be proceeded further. That apart, the courts below concluded that the defendants 1 and 2, who is the Church, represents the community at large. The said concurrent finding does not appear to this Court to be vitiated by any perversity requiring interference in exercise of the powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the presence of the community was not an issue affecting the maintainability of the suit at large.”

The Court remarked that even if the suit suffered from such an infirmity of not impleading the Knanaya Community, the same was cured by taking out the paper publication was mentioned above.

Permission of Central Government not required to file suit in which religious head of a foreign State impleaded

The appellants had contended the suit was hit by Section 86 of the CPC since the permission of the Central government was not obtained. However, the Court remarked that this was not required since the suit was not against foreign ruler, ambassadors or envoys but against which religious head of foreign State.

“When we look at the status of defendants 5 and 6, it is clear that they are not the foreign state but only the religious head of the foreign state. Moreover, no relief is claimed against them in the suit. Merely because certain representatives of a religious forum were impleaded in the suit, which according to this Court, is wholly unnecessary and not germane to the issue raised in the appeal, by itself is not a ground to non-suit the plaintiffs,” held the judge.

No procedural irregularity in the trial

The appellants had taken an argument that the trial court had erred in recasting the issues frame since two additional issues were raised when the Knanaya Catholic Congress got itself impleaded. Rejecting the same, the Court remarked:

“Going by the provisions of Order-XIV Rule-5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court has got the power to amend the issues or frame additional issues at any time before passing of the decree. Therefore, this Court finds that the contention of the appellants that the recasting of the issues had affected a fair trial cannot be accepted.”

It was also contended that the appellate court could not have framed issues for consideration. However, the Court found that the appellate court only framed certain points for consideration and also that there was no procedural irregularity because of the same.

Suit not barred by limitation

The Court held that the wrongdoing sought to be injuncted against was continuing in nature and therefore, therefore, limitation does not get extinguished. It also took note of a submission made by the Archeparchy in its written statement wherein it was admitted that the there is no forcible termination of the membership.

“the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree based on an admission in para 42 of the written statement. Secondly, what complained of, is a wrongdoing which is continuing in nature and has no authority of law. Therefore, so long as the wrongdoing recurs at the hands of defendants 1 and 2, the limitation does not get extinguished… In the present case, it is evident that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 had to relinquish their membership because of the stand of defendants 1 and 2 that those who wants to marry from outside the community must leave the community. The above stand is clear without sanctity of law. The refusal of the defendants 1 and 2 to readmit the plaintiffs 2 and 3 is a continuing wrong and hence the present suit cannot be considered as one barred by limitation,” the Court added.

Case No: RSA No. 656 of 2022

Case Title: The Metropolitan Archbishop, The Archeparchy of Kottayam and Anr. v. Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 163

Counsel for the appellants: P.B. Krishnan (Sr.), Manu Vyasan Peter, P.B. Subramyan, Sabu George, Abraham Babu Kallivayalil, Jacob E.Simon

Counsel for the respondents:

Click to Read/Download Judgment