9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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 identifiabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court, vide judgment dated 30.03.1990. The same became final as it was not carried any further. 4. The appellant continued in possession of the property in suit. However, as the respondents were trying to interfere with the possession of the appellant, she filed the suit. 5. The respondents contested the suit and filed their written statements. According to them, the defence taken was that they had purchased 8 cents of land by way of registered sale deed on 13.03.1974 which was with respect to an open piece of land and did not contain any building as such. The suit of 1976 filed by them was with respect to the constructions raised by the appellant and not with respect to 8 cents of land. The appellant had no right, title or interest over the suit property. The suit was liable to be dismissed. 6. The Trial Court framed the following six issues: (i). Whether the suit property properly absolutely belongs to the plaintiffs? (ii). Whether the decision of the Honourable High Court of Madras in S.A. 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? (iii). Whether the plaintiffs have been in possessio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he First Appeal Court in the first round of litigation merged with the judgment of the High Court dated 30.03.1990 and it is that judgment alone which has to be read as final and binding between the parties. 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. The High Court in its impugned judgement has in fact breached the judicial discipline by taking a view contrary to the earlier judgement. 13. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the judgements of the Trial Court and the High Court in the present round is correct in law and facts. The earlier round of litigation initiated by the respondents was only with respect to the constructions raised by the appellant which of course they had lost. The respondents had throughout been in possession of the 8 cents of land. The appellants were never in possession thereof. The judgement of the Trial Court and that of the High Court deserves to be maintained. 14. In the judgement of the High Court in the first round dated 30.03.1990, it is not at o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er forum. The judgement dated 30.03.1990 attained finality. Interpreting the said judgement which was clear in itself any differently would clearly amount to judicial indiscipline. 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. 17. 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. The same was aptly summed up by this Court when it described the said doctrine in Kunhayammed Ors. v. State of Kerala Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359: 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 operati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 21. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
