Case title: Mary Pushpam vs Telvi Curusumary
Case no.: civil appeal no. 9941 of 2016
Decided on: 03.01.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The appellant has filed this civil appeal in the Supreme Court of India challenging the correctness of the judgement and order dated 21.07.2009 passed by Madras High Court, which allowed the defendant-respondent’s Second Appeal, set aside the judgement and decree passed by the Sub-Judge, Padmanabhapuram dated 13.10.2003, and restored and confirmed the Trial Court’s judgement and decree dated 30.06.1997.
The appellant previously filed a civil suit against the respondents, in the Court of District Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Eraniel, seeking a declaration of title, possession, and a permanent injunction. The suit was brought because, in 1976, the respondents filed an ejectment suit against the appellant. The High Court dismissed the suit of respondents in the first appeal, and the second appeal on March 30, 1990.
Now, the appellant retained possession of the property in the matter. Nonetheless, since the respondents attempted to interfere with the appellant’s possession, she filed the suit.
The Trial Court decreed the suit for declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction on June 30, 1997, but only for the portion of the suit property where the house property was located, out of a total of 8 cents. The suit for the other property was dismissed.
Aggrieved by this the appellant preferred an Appeal. The Sub-Judge altered the Trial Court’s judgement and decreed on October 13, 2003, declaring that the appellants were entitled to the entire suit property for relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction, and setting up their boundary to secure the said property. In this judgment, the learned Sub-Judge relied primarily on the High Court’s judgement dated March 30, 1990.
Aggrieved, the respondents filed a second appeal with the High Court. By the impugned judgement, the High Court allowed the appeal, overturned the Sub-Judge’s decision, and reinstated the Trial Court’s decree. The plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the outcome, has chosen to appeal.
PRINCIPLES DISCUSSED:
Rule of Judicial Discipline and Prosperity:
In ‘Judicial Discipline and Propriety’, Lower or subordinate courts lack the authority to overturn the decisions of higher courts.
Doctrine of Merger:
It is a common law doctrine based on the idea of upholding the decorum of judicial and administrative hierarchy. The doctrine is based on the simple premise that more than one operative order governing the same subject matter cannot exist concurrently.
Rule of precedent:
When a decision of a coordinate Bench of the same High Court is brought to the bench’s attention, it is to be respected and binding, subject to the bench’s right to take a different view and refer the question to a larger bench.
ISSUE RAISED:
Whether the Honourable High Court of Madras’ decision in 1990 applies to the entire 8 cents of the suit property or just the house on a portion of it?
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellant contended that in the first round, the High Court specifically stated in its judgement dated 30.03.1990 that the dispute was over 8 cents of land and the structure built on it. In the current round of litigation, the Trial Court or the High Court could not have limited it to the construction rather than the entire portion of land measuring 8 cents. It is also argued that, under the law of merger, the judgements of the Trial Court and the First Appeal Court in the first round of litigation merged with the judgement of the High Court dated 30.03.1990, and that judgement alone must be read as final and binding between the parties. It is also argued that the First Appeal Court, in its current round judgement dated 13.10.2003, specifically stated that the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction to overturn the High Court’s decision. In its challenged decision, the High Court violated judicial discipline by taking a position that contradicted the previous decision.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents contended that the Trial Court and High Court’s decisions in the current round were correct in law and fact. The respondents’ previous round of litigation was solely focused on the appellant’s constructions, which they had obviously lost. The respondents had always had possession of the 8 cents of land. The appellants were never in possession thereof. Both the Trial Court’s and the High Court’s decisions deserve to stand.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court determined that there was no defence for the respondents to raise because the appellant had already perfected her rights through adverse possession of the suit property, which was 8 cents of land. And it held that the respondents never sought clarification on the High Court’s findings or observations, nor did they challenge them in any higher forum. The judgement dated 30.03.1990 attained finality. Any other interpretation of the aforementioned judgement, which was clear in itself, would clearly constitute judicial misconduct. In its decision dated 13.10.2003, the Sub-Judge correctly stated that the Trial Court had no authority to interpret the High Court’s judgement dated 30.03.1990 in any way other than what was recorded therein.
According to the Doctrine of Merger, the judgements of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court from the first round of litigation are incorporated into the High Court’s judgement dated March 30, 1990. This 1990 judgement should be considered the final and binding order from the initial litigation.
The court also ruled that no record of the actual boundary or measurements of the property in question exists. The suit for possession must accurately describe the property in question, including all measurement and boundary details. This was totally lacking. A suit for possession of such property would likely be dismissed due to its identifiability.
The appeal is granted, and the High Court’s judgement was set aside, while the First Appellate Court’s decision by Sub-Judge Padmanabhapuram is restored and upheld.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith
