The central legal point established is that civil courts have jurisdiction to try church disputes and can grant leave under Section 92 of CPC. Additionally, documents executed by non-authorized persons are void ab initio.

JUDGMENT :

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This appeal was preferred by defendants 7 to 9 in O.S.No.15/2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. The dispute manifests a factional dispute among parishioners of the Syrian Malankara Church. The suit was filed in the year 2016 much before the decision of the Apex Court in Varghese v. St.Peter's & Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church [2017 (3) KLT 261 (SC)]. The decision of the Apex Court in Varghese case (supra) would bind all disputes relating to Malankara Church. The Apex Court's decision in Varghese case (supra) was in a representative suit and there was nothing left for further litigation on the matter but to ensure that binding judgment of the Apex Court in Varghese case (supra) is followed in all future litigations. The Apex Court declared that the administration of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1934 Constitution.

2. The present suit was filed for declaration and injunction of St. Johns Besphage Orthodox Syrian Church, Pulinthanam in Muvattupuzha. They seek a declaration that the aforesaid church has to be administrated in accordance with the provisions of the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. They also sought an injunction as against causing obstruction to the Vicars appointed under the 1934 Constitution.

3. The contesting defendants resisted the suit contending that there was no occasion for the first defendant church being administrated under the 1934 Constitution. The 1934 Constitution was never adopted for the administration of the Church.

4. The second defendant is the Vicar appointed in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. He supported the case of the plaintiffs.

5. The additional defendants 7 to 9 who are the appellants herein claim that the fourth defendant is a Vicar and disputed the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit. It was their contention that the first defendant Church has never been administrated in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. No separate statement was filed by the fourth defendant. The fourth defendant along with defendants 5 and 6 supported the case of additional defendants 7 to 9, the appellants herein.

6. By the time, the matter came up for a trial, the Apex Court judgment in Varghese case (supra) was delivered. The trial court, following the judgment in Varghese case (supra), decreed the suit.

7. In this appeal, the appellants fully knowing well that Varghese case (supra) judgment would stare at them, raised the following argument :

(i) The Sub Court, Muvattupuzha, has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit involving a dispute relating to Church.

According to learned senior counsel, Sri. K. Ramkumar, appearing for the appellants, such suit will have to be tried exclusively by a designated special court for the church dispute by the order of the Government of Kerala dated 30.06.1976. This designated court is a Special Court at Ernakulam. The learned counsel also relied on the order of the Apex Court in SLP No.16579/2013.

(ii) It was further argued that the Sub Court has no jurisdiction to grant leave in a suit coming under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. The leave can be granted only by the Principal Civil Court in the District.

(iii) The learned senior counsel further pointed out the declaration sought is not maintainable.

(iv) Next argument was that the Settlement Deed and the lease deed have been declared as null and void without producing the original of such deeds.

7. In regard to the jurisdiction of the court, the Sub Court to entertain Church dispute, it is to be noted that the Government on 30.6.1976 issued the following order :

“The Registrar of the High Court has recommended that one Additional Sessions Court may be established at Ernakulam exclusively for the trial of cases connected with Malankara Church disputes now pending in various courts of the stat