2024 (1) TMI 1268 - SC - Indian Laws

Doctrine of merger and doctrine of binding precedent - Civil suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction against the respondents - 8 cents of land and the construction standing thereon - HELD THAT - The doctrine of merger is a common law doctrine that is rooted in the idea of maintenance of the decorum of hierarchy of courts and tribunals. The doctrine is based on the simple reasoning that there cannot be, at the same time, more than one operative order governing the same subject matter. 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. As per the Doctrine of Merger, the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court from the first round of litigation are absorbed into the High Court's judgment dated 30.03.1990. This 1990 judgment should be regarded as the conclusive and binding order from the initial litigation. Following the principles of judicial discipline, lower or subordinate Courts do not have the authority to contradict the decisions of higher Courts. In the 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. The argument of the Counsel for respondents is mainly that the judgment of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in the first round of litigation clearly stated in the case of the plaintiff that it was with respect to the constructed portion only in which the mother of the appellant was residing and not the whole area of 8 cents purchased by them. The High Court committed a bona fide error in recording that the suit property was 8 cents along with constructions standing over it. As such the Trial Court and the High Court in the present round were correct in limiting the decree only to the constructions and not the entire area of 8 cents. A suit for possession with respect to such a property would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of its identifiability. Further, it may be noted that if the construction by the defendant were not made over 8 cents of purchased land, then the plaintiff therein would not have a claim to possession of the same. The argument thus has to be rejected not only on facts but also on legal grounds. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and that of the First Appellate Court dated 13.10.2003 passed by the Sub-Judge, Padmana bhapuram is restored and maintained - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Judicial Discipline and Propriety
2. Doctrine of Precedents
3. Declaration of Title, Possession, and Permanent Injunction
4. Interpretation of Previous Judgments
5. Doctrine of Merger

Summary:

Judicial Discipline and Propriety:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of 'Judicial Discipline and Propriety' and the Doctrine of precedents, which promote certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, ensuring individuals are aware of the consequences of their actions. It reiterated that a decision of a coordinate Bench of the same High Court is binding and should be respected unless referred to a larger bench.

Doctrine of Precedents:
The appellant challenged the judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, which had allowed the Second Appeal by the defendant-respondent, setting aside the Sub-Judge's decision and restoring the Trial Court's judgment. The appellant argued that the High Court's earlier judgment dated 30.03.1990, which dealt with the entire 8 cents of land, should have been binding.

Declaration of Title, Possession, and Permanent Injunction:
The appellant filed a civil suit for declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction against the respondents. The Trial Court decreed the suit only for the portion where the house was situated, dismissing the rest. The Sub-Judge, on appeal, declared the appellant entitled to the entire suit property. However, the High Court in the second appeal restored the Trial Court's judgment, limiting the decree to the constructions only.

Interpretation of Previous Judgments:
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's judgment from 30.03.1990 clearly mentioned the dispute over 8 cents of land. The Trial Court and the High Court in the second round of litigation violated judicial discipline by contradicting this judgment. The Sub-Judge had rightly observed that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to reinterpret the High Court's judgment.

Doctrine of Merger:
The Supreme Court discussed the Doctrine of Merger, which states that when a higher court modifies, reverses, or affirms a decision, the lower court's decision merges into the higher court's decision. The High Court's judgment from 30.03.1990, which included the entire 8 cents of land, was final and binding. The lower courts in the subsequent round of litigation erred by not adhering to this doctrine.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's impugned judgment and restoring the Sub-Judge's decision dated 13.10.2003, which declared the appellant entitled to the entire suit property. There was no order as to costs.