Janamma v. Joseph And Others

1. The appeal arises out of a representative suit under s. 92 of the code of civil procedure by the respondents against two defendants, The appellant being the first defendant. The respondents claimed that the prathyaksha raksha daiva sabha (p. R. D. S.) founded by poikayil yohannan, The husband of the appellant, Was a christian sect following the tenets of christianity; that the respondents were members of the sabha; that the appellant and the other defendant were originally members thereof, But ceased to be members of the sabha in 1125 since they converted to hinduism; that the appellant and the other defendant were not entitled to continue as office bearers of the sabha; that they must be removed therefrom and that a scheme should be framed for the management of the properties belonging to the sabha. The appellant alone contested. She claimed that she was the president of the sabha and the other defendant was its secretary till recently; that they were both members of the sabha; that the sabha was not a christian sect; that the assets of the sabha were acquired by poikayil yohannan and after his death by herself; that after the death of her husband she was managing the affairs of the sabha; that simon

yohannan, The father of the second respondent, Was never its president; that the suit was brought at the instance of simon yohannan after he failed in earlier criminal and civil litigations against her; and that the members of the sabha did not believe in baptism, Had no churches or clergy and believed that poikayil yohannan was an incarnation (avathar) of god.

2. The main issues considered by the lower court were whether p. R. D. S. Was a christian sect; whether the respondents were members thereof; whether the appellant and the other defendant embraced hinduism; whether for that reason there was breach of trust; and whether a scheme should be framed for the management of the properties of the sabha. The lower court answered all these questions in favour of the respondents, And hence the appeal by the first defendant.

3. Apparently, The most important question for consideration is whether p. R. D. S. Is a christian organisation or sect. As rightly pointed out by the district judge, It is essential to bear in mind, As a background, The socio - religious conditions of the people who constituted the membership of the sabha. The founder, Poikayil yohannan, Was a sambava (paraya) by caste; and the members of the sabha came mainly, If not wholly, From the depressed classes like cherumar, Sambavar, Einavar, Nadar, Kuravar, Pulayar, Etc. They were all untouchable hindus outside the four castes of hinduism (panchamas) ; and they could not go near the higher castes without polluting them. They were not also allowed to go near hindu temples nor worship in them. They converted to islam occasionally and to christianity more often; and their change of religion was mainly for relieving their social disabilities and advancing their social condition. In other words, The conversions were seldom the result of any conscious evaluation of the comparative merits of the new faith they were embracing with the tenets of the religion they were leaving. The founder was born a sambava and was named kumar by his parents; but when he was four or five, He was converted to the marthomite section of christianity. He took a christian wife by name mariam; but, He discarded her after some years after children were born to her. Then he took the appellant, A south travancorean sambava, As wife, By which alliance also he had children. Naturally, He was expelled from the marthomite creed because of his second marriage; and it was then that he started p. R. D. S. In 1085 m. E. (1910.) i may add here that by that time another saintly social reformer, Sri narayana guru, Had started his now famous teaching of "one caste, One creed and one god for man": and the movement was well under way. The question for consideration is whether the sabha yohannan started in those circumstances with the tenets he preached was a christian sect or organisation.

4. The district judge considers documents like ex. Ag, Copy of an application for sanction to construct a church at matappally and the order thereon by the chief secretary to the government, Ex. F, A sale deed executed by a third party in favour of other third parties on behalf of the sabha, Ex. G, A mortgage deed executed by some persons on behalf of the sabha, Etc. In these documents the relevant parties, Who were members of p. R. D. S. Are described as sambava christian, Cheruma christian, Nadar christian, New christian (new convert), Etc. From these and the electoral roll (ex. C), Wherein the appellant's religion is shown as christianity, The district judge concludes that p. R. D. S. Is a christian organisation.

5. As already stated, The members of p. R. D. S. Were christian converts from the several depressed and socially disabled hindu castes subjected to several social disabilities like untouchability and considerable segregation, From which they did not get any appreciable relief even after their conversion. They were not allowed to marry from the other sections of christians: in fact, The depressed class converts were treated as a separate section, An inferior section, Among christians. It was under those circumstances that poikayil yohannan started p. R. D. S. The district judge notes in para. 19 of his judgment that the reference as christian in the address of the founder and the members of the sabha in several of those documents is, To some extent, Merely a matter of description and does not amount to an admission regarding the faith they were professing. But, He says that the averments in ex. Am, A written statement filed by yohannan yohannan, Ex. G, A mortgage deed executed by yohannan yohannan and others, Ex. Y, The nomination paper filed by the appellant, Etc., Do amount to and constitute an admission of faith. I do not think that the district judge is right in this conclusion, For, The faith of p. R. D. S. Has to be decided by the tenets preached by its founder and believed by his followers and not by the mere description of them as christians, As the question to be answered is whether p. R. D. S. Was christian in faith.

6. P. W. 1 is the first respondent; and his evidence is of not much help. P. W. 6 is a graduate, Who was a member of the legislative assembly and a follower of the teachings of poikayil yohannan. P. W. 7 is the

third respondent, Who speaks to facts from personal knowledge. Similarly, P. W. 5 also gives useful evidence. I do not propose to refer to the evidence on the side of the appellant for the purpose of finding out the main tenets of p. R. D. S., Because i am not convinced that, Even with the evidence on the side of the respondents, It can be safely held that p. R. D s. Was christian in faith. From the evidence of p. W. 6 it appears that poikayil yohannan used to deliver speeches implying that the he was himself god. This the witness says even in his examination - in - chief. The witness proceeds to say that yohannan used to sing songs composed by himself, Praising jesus christ. He also states that his sister and children, Who were followers of yohannan, Believed that he was an incarnation or avathar of god. P. W. 5 also admits that yohannan was believed to be an incarnation by his followers. He further says that p. R. D. S. Had no churches, No clergy, No child baptism, No crosses atop their prarthanalayams (places of worship) or inside them. The evidence of p. W. 5 is also on the same lines. I may state that all these witnesses naturally claim that poikayil yohannan was a believer in christianity and what he preached were tenets of christianity. The real question is not as to what they claim, But as to what he really believed and preached whether it was the christian faith. What actually emerges from the evidence of these witnesses is that yohannan did not believe in baptism of any kind, Child or adult; that he preached in such a way as to make his followers believe that he was an incarnation of god and they believed it; that p. R. D. S. Had no churches or clergy; and that they did not use the cross as a symbol of their religion.

7. The district judge considers that the absence of clergy and the non - observance of child baptism do not conclusively show that p. R. D. S. Was not a christian creed. There is no evidence (though p. W. 5 has stated that he had seen a bound book with simon yohannan containing the record of baptisms) to show that p. R. D. S. Ever observed baptism of any kind. The absence of clergy may not be conclusive to show that the creed was not christianity. Similarly, The absence of child baptism may not also be conclusive of the question. But, I am led to believe that adult baptism is an essential sacrament of christianity. My attention has been invited to a work entitled a new commentary on holy scripture including the apocrypha, Edited by charles gore, Henry leighton goudge and alfred guillaume, 1958 edn. The article captioned the teaching of our lord jesus christ by charles gore in part iii of the work refers to this aspect at page 295; and the author says:

"baptism appears in the acts from the day of pentecost onward as the indispensable ceremony of admission into the community of the new covenant. It is the ceremony which the baptist had adopted as the symbol of admission to 'the people prepared for the lord'."

again, In another article captioned the acts of the apostles by e. J. Bicknell in the same part of the book at page 335 the author deals with baptism; and he says:

"so it is in full accord with jewish ideas that the apostles should from the first baptize new members. By baptism they were transferred from the old israel, Or the world, Into the new israel, The people of god. Thus they became as it were 'proleptic' members of the kingdom of god."

yet in another article headed the theology of st. Paul by h. L. Goudge at page 421 appears:

"but, Though baptism is no substitute for faith, Just as little, Is faith a substitute for baptism st. Paul would not have regarded as a believer one who refused to be baptized."

i shall refer to yet another article, The epistle to the romans by n. P. Williams, In the same part of the work. At page 465 appears:

"as previously pointed out, The acceptance of christian initiation, Which culminates in the ceremony of the mystical laver, Is for him the necessary expression and the crowning point of the 'act of faith, Faith; and baptism are related as the inner and outer aspects of the one indivisible act of conversion from sin and idols to the service of the true god."

lastly, Wilfred l. Knox in another article in the same part of the volume headed galatians says at page 535:

"the idea that faith is possible without formal admission to the church by baptism is entirely foreign to his whole conception of christianity, Which involves as its essential character unity in christ with

the whole body of christians. "

i do not propose to multiply such quotations, Which show that adult baptism, At any rate, Is an essential sacrament of christianity. This sacrament is significantly absent in p. R. D. S.

8. I shall now come to the more important aspect, The claim of poikayil yohannan that he was himself an incarnation of god. The respondents' witnesses themselves agree that no christian believes that anybody other than lord jesus is the son of god, The incarnation of god. To a christian jesus is the only son of god. If so, Can it be said that poikayil yohannan preached christianity when he made his followers believe that he was himself an incarnation of god? i think, No believer in christianity would have allowed or subscribed to this claim; and yohannan, If he were himself a believer in christianity, Would not have made such a claim.

9. At this stage it will be interesting to refer to a work in malayalam by k. V. Simon published in 1114, Just before the death of poikayil yohannan. This is a short history of the several dissident or rebel groups of christianity. The author, No doubt, Treats p. R. D. S. As a christian dissident sect. I shall now advert to the author's reference to p. R. D. S. And its tenets at pages 105 to 107 of the work. He says that poikayil yohannan wanted to do away with caste: he wanted to have a syrian christian woman to be married to a depressed class convert christian. Since such a marriage was an unprecedented event in kerala, The marthomites threatened the bride's and the groom's people with dire consequences to beat them up. However, Due to the intervention of some friends the marriage did not take place, And as a result of this disappointment, Yohannan started p. R. D. S. Then, The author enumerates the main tenets of the sabha:

(1) god, The father, Came down from heaven as poikayil yohannan;

(2) since he came down as a man, People cannot redeem or save themselves unless they beard the voice of the lord himself in person, I. E. They cannot save themselves by reading the bible or by hearing speeches about the bible;

(3) the bible is not essential for these times or for this generation;

(4) after the days of the apostles their creed disappeared and thereafter, Up to this generation, There was none who had been saved or redeemed;

(5) as bible is to the christian, Yohannan's words are to p. R. D. S. ;

(6) there will be no resurrection of the lord nor the millennium; and

(7) since the trinity have come down to the earth, Heaven is now like a cattle shed without cattle.

10. The author continues that because of such preaching the followers of p. R. D. S. Believed that the bible was unnecessary for them and that yohannan's words alone were sufficient; they started burning the bible in bundles; they believed that for everything yohannan's word was the authority; if they did anything in accordance with the words of yohannan, There was no sin; and they also believed that worship and prayer must de made in the direction where yohannan was sitting. The author narrates that yohannan discarded his first wife and married a south travancorean; and because of this the majority of his followers left him. The author concludes that old yohannan was still alive.

11. At this stage it is relevant to bear in mind the meaning of the expression "prathyaksha raksha daiva", Which means"'the god that redeems in person"; and this is in full accord with the claim that yohannan was an avathar of god.

12. These i point out for the purpose of showing the nature and content of the preaching of yohannan and the surroundings and circumstances in which he preached. Can it be said that a person who preached that the bible was not essential for the times or for his generation and who was responsible for the burning of the bible was a christian? can it be said that a person who said that he was himself the

resurrection of the lord or that even adult baptism was not an essential sacrament was a christian? my opinion, In the circumstances, Is that p. R. D. S. Was at any rate a non - christian organisation, Even though it might not be an anti - christian organisation; and that its followers believed in a faith or creed which was essentially not christian. Swami vivekananda said that budbism was a rebel child of hinduism. Still, Budhism is not hinduism. Similarly, Even if it may be claimed that p. R. D. S. Is only a rebel child of the christian creed, It cannot be said that p. R. D. S. Is christianity, Unless that essential beliefs or the fundamentals are the same in both. Poikayil yohannan, The founder of p. R. D. S., Was a convert from hinduism to the christian faith who was subsequently - expelled from the latter. He was also a disappointed convert because of the different treatment meted out to the new converts by the members of the christian faith. He then preached that he was god, That bible was not essential and that his word alone would save the believers, Who consequently even burned their bibles. I do not feel, In the circumstances, Bold enough to agree with the district judge and hold that what yohannan preached was the christian faith.

13. The respondents came to court claiming that they were christians and were suing in a representative capacity representing the christians; and also claiming that p. R. D. S. Was a christian organisation. If so, They cannot get the relief they claimed in the suit unless p. R. D. S. Is a christian organisation. I have already expressed my inability to hold that p. R. D. S is christian in faith.

14. It is then urged that the appellant and her party embraced hinduism, So that they are not entitled to continue as office bearers of p. R. D. S. And also to manage the properties belonging to the sabha. In support of this allegation some notices to conduct meetings and also a report in the malayala manorama (ex. J) are relied upon. The reporter of the paper has also been examined as p. W. 3. I do not propose to consider the question whether the appellant and her party have embraced hinduism. It is notorious how reports in newspapers are unreliable regarding controversial matters which take place at meetings. Often, Different newspapers report the same speech or incident giving it different shades. This must all the more be so when the papers themselves have colours and opinions on the matter. Therefore, I am not inclined to give much credence to the report in the paper or the evidence of the reporter. I may reiterate that it is not necessary for me to consider in this case whether the appellant and her party embraced hinduism. I also wish to make it clear that, From the evidence now on record, It appears to me that p. R. D. S. Is not even a hindu creed, But only a new venture to start a new casteless creed for the depressed and the socially disabled communities. This will be evident from ex. A, Which is said to contain the rules of p. R. D. S. And which is said to have been published by the appellant, Though she disclaims it. However, I wish to drop a word of caution that i am not deciding this question, Nor is it necessary that i should enter a finding in this case on this question. I do not also express any opinion on the question whether the real members and believers of p. R. D. S. Have the right to change the creed originally preached by its founder. For the purpose of this case it is enough to observe that the suit by the respondents is on behalf of christians; on the claim that p. R. D. S. Is christian in faith; and that p. R. D. S. Is not a christian organisation. Therefore, They cannot maintain the suit and obtain any relief.

15. The appeal is allowed; and the suit is dismissed with costs throughout. Dismissed.