Hc Bench Restricted By Coordinate Bench Judgment: Supreme Court Underlines Value Of "judicial Discipline"

CASE TITLE:

MARY PUSHPAM VS TELVI CURUSUMARY & ORS.

BENCH:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH

PARTIES:

Plaintiff: MARY PUSHPAM

Respondent: TELVI CURUSUMARY & ORS.

SUBJECT:

• The "Judicial Discipline and Propriety" rule and the precedent doctrine have the advantage of encouraging consistency and clarity in judicial rulings, giving people confidence regarding the repercussions of their choices.
• The court's Constitution benches have taken the time to restate the guidelines derived from judicial discipline. As a result, upon notice to the bench, a decision made by a coordinate bench of the same High court is binding and should be respected, though the bench of such a co-equal quorum retains the right to differ and refer the matter to a larger bench. When presented with the previous decision made by a bench of equal strength, it is the only option available to a bench of co-equal strength.

OVERVIEW:

• The rule of 'Judicial Discipline and Propriety' and the Doctrine of precedents promotes certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, providing assurance to individuals about the consequences of their actions. The Constitution benches of this court have time and reiterated the rules emerging from Judicial Discipline. When a decision of a coordinate Bench of the same High court is brought to the notice of the bench, it is to be respected and is binding subject to the right of the bench of such co-equal quorum to take a different view and refer the question to a larger bench.
• The plaintiff is in appeal assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 21.07.2009 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The appellant filed OS No. 308 of 1995, a civil suit against the respondents, seeking a declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction in the Court of District Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Eraniel. The respondents contested the suit and filed written statements, arguing that they had purchased 8 cents of land by way of registered sale deed on 13.03.1974, which did not contain any building. The suit was dismissed with respect to the other property.
• The appellant, Mary Pushpam preferred an Appeal registered as Appeal No. 169 of 1997, which was modified by the Sub-Judge, stating that the appellants were entitled for the entire suit property for relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction, and for setting up their boundary for securing the property.

ISSUES RAISED:

• Is the property in question rightfully and solely the plaintiffs' property?
• Does the ruling in S.A. No. 2082/1990 by the Honorable High Court of Madras apply to the house situated within a portion of the suit property, or does it apply to the entire 8 cents of the property?
• Is the entirety of the property under suit owned and enjoyed by the plaintiffs?
•  Are the plaintiffs entitled to the relief of the prayed-for permanent injunction?
•  Is it necessary to draw a boundary and establish the northern boundary as requested for the suit property?
• Which reliefs are the Plaintiffs entitled to, if any?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES

• The appellant argues that the High Court's initial judgment on 30.03.1990 specifically recorded the dispute on 8 cents of land and construction. The present litigation could not have confined it to the construction portion. The appellant argues that the judgment of the Trial Court and First Appeal Court merged with the High Court's judgment, and the First Appeal Court had no jurisdiction to challenge the High Court's decision.
• The respondents' counsel argued that the Trial Court and High Court's judgments are correct, as the earlier litigation was related to lost constructions. They maintained that the respondents were always in possession of the 8 cents of land.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

• The High Court's judgment on 30.03.1990 recorded that the suit property consisted of 8 cents of land purchased by the respondents in 1974. The court noted that the defendant was residing in the property even prior to the plaintiff's purchase. The appellant's counsel also argued that the property was purchased by a sale deed dated 13.03.1974. The court concluded that the respondent was in possession of the property for more than the statutory period and had perfected her title by adverse possession.
• The respondents did not seek clarification or assail the judgment before any higher forum. The judgment attained finality, and interpreting it differently would amount to judicial indiscipline. The Sub-Judge observed that the Trial Court had no business to interpret the judgment in any other way than what was recorded therein.
• The doctrine of merger is a common law doctrine rooted in the idea of maintaining the hierarchy of courts and tribunals. It states that there cannot be more than one operative order governing the same subject matter.
• The legal position on coordinate benches has been elaborated by the Court in State of Punjab & Anr. v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. & Anr.2, which states that judicial discipline requires a coordinate Bench to follow the decision of an earlier coordinate Bench. If a coordinate Bench disagrees with the principles of law enunciated by another Bench, the matter may be referred only to a larger Bench. The importance of ensuring judicial discipline has been upheld by various judgments of this Court, such as Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.3. In the current case, the High Court's judgment from the initial round dated 30.03.1990, which included 8 cents of land, was absorbed into the High Court's judgment dated 30.03.1990. Lower or subordinate Courts do not have the authority to contradict the decisions of higher Courts, as per the principles of judicial discipline.
• The counsel for respondents argued that the trial court and First Appellate Court's judgment in the first round of litigation was correct in limiting the decree to the constructions rather than the entire area of 8 cents purchased by the appellant's mother. The court examined the judgment and found that the actual boundary or measurements of the property in possession of the appellant's mother were not recorded. The respondents' argument was rejected on both facts and legal grounds, as a suit for possession must accurately describe the property and its measurements. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment and order were set aside, while the First Appellate Court's order was restored and maintained.

CONCLUSION:

• The Apex Court ruled that the High Court's judgment of 8 cents of land in the first suit violated judicial discipline. The court also discussed the doctrine of merger, which states that there cannot be multiple operative orders governing the same subject matter. The Court ruled that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court violated this by adopting a position contrary to the High Court's final judgment from the first round of litigation. The appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment set aside.