V. Bhargava, J. - (1.) This is an application in which the prayer is for issue of writs in the nature of prohibition and mandamus against the opposite parties, the Registrar, High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, the State of Uttar Pradesh and three individuals, viz. Rev. R. W. Matheson, Dr. A. Ralla Ram and Rev. Kennath Masih. The applicants are Christians residing at Allahabad & claiming to be the members of the congregation entitled to worship in St Andrew's Church, Allahabad. It is alleged that opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 are interfering with the right of the applicants to hold their meetings for prayers in the Church at the instigation of and with the connivance of opposite parties nos. 3, 4 and 5. The applicants claimed that this act of the opposite parties interferes with the fundamental right of the applicants to maintain their religious institution, St Andrew's Church, Allahabad, for religious purposes. In support of these allegations affidavits were filed on behalf of the applicants and, on service of notice, Rev. R. W. Matheson, opposite party No. 3, filed two counter-affidavits. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicants and certain documents have been appended to this rejoinder affidavit.
(2.) The facts, as they appear from these various affidavits, are that this church came into existence some time about the middle of the 19th century. According to the applicants, the church was a United Presbyterian Church which was consecrated and started with funds contributed by members of the Presbyterian Congregation and by private persons who, before the construction of the church, used to worship in Katra and Jumna Mission Churches. The church was constructed under the supervision of Rev. James Williamson who was a Minister of the Church of Scotland. According to the opposite parties, the church was constructed by Rev. James Williamson not on behalf of the Presbyterian Congregation of Allahabad but on behalf of the Government though public subscriptions were also raised. After the construction of the church, according to the opposite parties, its management was handed over by the Government to the Church of Scotland which also constructed certain ancillary buildings. The church, all the time, continued to belong to the Government whereas the ancillary buildings belonged to the Church of Scotland. The case of the applicants is that they have all through been saying their prayers in this church without any appreciable break until 11-1-1953; whereas the opposite parties alleged that the use of this church for purposes of prayers was given up about 30 years ago and since then the church has been lying deserted. Their case is that it was only in 1947 that these applicants wanted to get possession of this church to start prayers therein. This was resisted by the authorities of the church of Scotland in India but the applicants did manage to use the church. The opposite parties have denied that the church was consecrated.
(3.) Rev. R. W. Matheson, opposite party No. 3, in his affidavit, has stated that there is no law in the Church of Scotland by which an ecclesiastical building cannot be used for secular purposes and that the authorities of the Church of Scotland had renounced their rights in this church in favour of the High Court. The remaining property, which is ancillary to St. Andrew's Church, has been claimed as the property of the Church of Scotland and it has been contended that, in order to acquire it, the Government have to pay proper and adequate compensation to the authorities of the Church of Scotland. It appears that possession over this property is already with the Government and the possession came with the consent of the authorities of the Church of Scotland. From all these facts, it would appear that the real dispute between the patties is as to the rights which the applicants and the authorities of the Church of Scotland had in this church. According to the applicants, the church was consecrated and they had a right to use it in perpetuity for their religious purposes. According to the authorities of the Church of Scotland, the church itself was the property of the Government and the Church of Scotland had merely the right to use it for religious purposes according to the usage of their Church which permitted subsequent use of the properties for secular purposes also. Opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 have purported to exercise rights in the church and the ancillary properties by virtue of the transfer in their favour by the authorities of the Church of Scotland, renouncing their rights in the church. It is only in the case of properties ancillary to the church that a claim has been put forward on behalf of the authorities of the Church of Scotland that they are entitled to proper and adequate compensation.;