https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306148 The SC affirmed that the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church validly governs parish churches, their internal administration, and church property, and that contrary Udampady arrangements and the later 2002 Constitution could not displace that settled framework. It further held that issues already finally decided in earlier representative litigation, including the validity of the 1934 Constitution and limits on rival control, were barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata. The appointment of vicars and other office-holders was treated as a secular administrative function, not a basis for parallel management under Articles 25 and 26. No court-framed scheme under Section 92 CPC or interim divided arrangement was warranted. en-us Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Jan 2023 21:07:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306148 The SC affirmed that the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church validly governs parish churches, their internal administration, and church property, and that contrary Udampady arrangements and the later 2002 Constitution could not displace that settled framework. It further held that issues already finally decided in earlier representative litigation, including the validity of the 1934 Constitution and limits on rival control, were barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata. The appointment of vicars and other office-holders was treated as a secular administrative function, not a basis for parallel management under Articles 25 and 26. No court-framed scheme under Section 92 CPC or interim divided arrangement was warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306148