Accordingly, when a decision of a coordinate Bench of same High court is brought to the notice of the bench, it is to be respected and is binding subject to right of the bench of such co-equal quorum to take a different view and refer the question to a larger bench. The appellant instituted a civil suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction against the respondents which was registered as OS No 308 of 1995 in the Court of District Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Eraniel. No 2082/1990 relates to the entire 8 cents of the suit property or whether it pertains to the house in a portion of the suit property? Whether the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the entire suit property?
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/interpretation-of-policy-date-in-suicide-clause/
The Trial Court, vide judgement dated 30.06.1997, decreed the suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction but only with respect to the portion over which the house property was situated out of the total extent of 8 cents of the suit property. The learned Sub-Judge had mainly relied upon the judgment of the High Court dated 30.03.1990 in the earlier round of litigation.
It is also submitted that the First Appeal Court in its judgement dated 13.10.2003 in the present round had specifically recorded that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to go against the judgement of the High Court. In the judgement of the High Court in the first round dated 30.03.1990, it is not at one place but at number of places that the High Court has recorded that the suit property comprised of 8 cents of land which was the land purchased by the respondents in 1974. The defendant was residing in this property even prior to the purchase of this property by the plaintiff.”
Then again in paragraph no.2, the High Court records as follows: “The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the suit property is comprised of 8 cents of land and the appellant purchased the same by a sale deed dated 13.03.1974, which is marked as Exhibit A-1”.
As already stated, that the respondent was residing in the suit property even prior to the purchase by the appellant.” Lastly, the High Court records its finding as follows: “The courts below found that all the documents produced by the respondent herein are in the name of the respondent.
The Sub-Judge in its judgement dated 13.10.2003 had rightly observed that the Trial Court had no business to interpret the judgement of the High Court dated 30.03.1990 in any other way than what was recorded therein. : “44 (i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of the Law.” The legal position on Coordinate Benches has further been elaborated by this Court in State of Punjab & Anr.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/adverse-possession-and-limitation-a-case-summary/
297-98, para 578, it is stated: “A decision is given per incuriam when the court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction which covered the case before it, in which case it must decide which case to follow.” We have already discussed about the importance of ensuring judicial discipline and the same has also been upheld by various judgement of this Court.
It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted.”
In the current case, as previously mentioned, the High Court’s judgment from the initial round dated 30.03.1990, noted that the disputed property included 8 cents of land, not just the building structure on it. In the Civil Appeal No 9941 of 2016 current case, the Trial Court and the High Court, in the second round of litigation, violated this judicial discipline by adopting a position contrary to the High Court’s final judgment dated 30.03.1990, from the first round of litigation.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/dispute-over-land-ownership-and-partition-courts-legal-analysis/
The respondents- plaintiff therein had based her case on the ground that they had purchased 8 cents of open piece of land and the defendant therein had raised construction over some adjoining land, and had trespassed over part of her purchased land as such decree of possession be granted. Suit for possession has to describe the property in question with accuracy and all details of measurement and boundaries. A suit for possession with respect to such a property would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of its identifiability.
Case Title: MARY PUSHPAM Vs. TELVI CURUSUMARY AND ORS. (2024 INSC 8)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009941-009941 / 2016
