Supreme Court of India
MARY PUSHPAMversusTELVI CURUSUMARY & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 8
- Decided
- 3 January 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
Lower courts cannot contradict a final higher‑court judgment; the 1990 High Court decision is conclusive and, by virtue of the doctrine of merger, governs the dispute, requiring restoration of the 2003 appellate order.
Summary
The appellant filed a civil suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction over an 8‑cents parcel of land, which had previously been the subject of litigation culminating in a High Court judgment on 30 March 1990. In the second round of litigation, the trial court and a later High Court judgment limited the decree to the building structure only, contrary to the earlier High Court decision that covered the entire 8‑cents. The appellant argued that the 1990 judgment was final, merged with subsequent orders, and binding on all lower courts under the doctrine of merger and judicial discipline. The Supreme Court examined the principles of judicial discipline, the doctrine of precedent, and the doctrine of merger, holding that lower courts cannot contradict a final higher‑court order and that the 1990 judgment must be regarded as conclusive. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned High Court order and restored the 2003 Sub‑Judge’s decree granting relief over the whole property. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a lower or subordinate court may contradict a final decision of a higher court under the rule of judicial discipline.
- Whether the High Court judgment dated 30.03.1990 is the conclusive and binding order covering the entire 8‑cents property.
- Whether the doctrine of merger applies to render the earlier judgments subsumed into the 1990 High Court decision.
- Whether a suit for possession must accurately describe the property’s boundaries and measurements.
Subjects
Judicial DisciplineJudicial IndisciplineJudicial ProprietyDoctrine of precedentsConsistency in judicial decisionsCo-equal quorumDoctrine of mergerMaintenance of the decorumHierarchy of courts and tribunalsCivil suitDeclaration of titlePossessionPermanent injunctionAccurate measurement and boundaries
Judgment
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 11 : 2024 INSC 8
Case Details
Mary Pushpam
v.
Telvi Curusumary & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 9941 of 2016)
03 January 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
As regards the principles of judicial discipline, if the lower or
subordinate Courts could contradict the decisions of higher courts.
Headnotes
Judicial Discipline – Rule and importance of:
Held: Rule of ‘Judicial Discipline and Propriety’ promotes certainty
and consistency in judicial decisions providing assurance to
individuals as to the consequences of their actions – 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 – Following the
principles of judicial discipline, lower or subordinate Courts do not
have the authority to contradict the decisions of higher courts –
On facts, the trial court and the High Court, in the second round
of litigation, violated the judicial discipline by adopting a position
contrary to the High Court’s final judgment dated 30.03.1990, from
the first round of litigation – Judgment dated 30.03.1990 attained
finality and should be regarded as the conclusive and binding order
from the initial litigation – Interpreting the said judgment which
was clear in itself any differently would clearly amount to judicial
indiscipline – Also the Sub-Judge in its judgment rightly observed
that the trial court had no business to interpret the judgment of
the High Court dated 30.03.1990 in any other way than what was
recorded therein – Thus, the impugned judgment and order of
the High Court is set aside and that of the first appellate court is
restored. [Paras 1, 15, 16, 20]
* Author
12 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Suit – Suit for possession – Accurate description of the actual
boundary or the measurements of the property – Requirement:
Held: Suit for possession has to describe the property in question
with accuracy and all details of measurement and boundaries –
When the same is lacking, the suit for possession with respect to
such a property would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of
its identifiability. [Para 23]
Doctrines – Doctrine of merger – Basis of:
Held: Doctrine of merger is rooted in the idea of maintenance
of the decorum of hierarchy of courts and tribunals – 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. [Para 17]
Doctrines – Doctrine of precedent – Rule of:
Held: It promotes certainty and consistency in judicial decisions
providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of their
actions – 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 – It is the only course of action open to a bench of co-equal
strength. [Para 1]
List of Citations and Other References
Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., [2000]
1 Suppl. SCR 538 : (2000) 6 SCC 359; State of
Punjab & Anr. v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. & Anr.,
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 930 : (2004) 11 SCC 26; Central
Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. vs. State
of Maharashtra & Anr., [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 1054 :
(2005) 2 SCC 673 – referred to.
Lists of Key Words
Judicial Discipline; Judicial Indiscipline; Judicial Propriety; Doctrine
of precedents; Consistency in judicial decisions; Co-equal quorum;
Doctrine of merger; Maintenance of the decorum; Hierarchy of
courts and tribunals; Civil suit; Declaration of title; Possession;
Permanent injunction; Accurate measurement and boundaries.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 13
MARY PUSHPAM v. TELVI CURUSUMARY & ORS.
Other Case Details Including Impugned Order and
Appearances
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.9941 of 2016
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2009 of the High Court
of Madras in SA No.451 of 2004.
Appearances:
Ms. N. S. Nappinai, V. Balaji, Atul Sharma, Asaithambi, C. Kannan,
Nizamuddin, S. Devendran, Rakesh K. Sharma, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Vikas Mehta, Vinayak Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of The Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1. The rule of ‘Judicial Discipline and Propriety’ and the Doctrine of
precedents has a merit of promoting certainty and consistency
in judicial decisions providing assurance to individuals as to the
consequences of their actions. The Constitution benches of this
court have time and again reiterated the rules emerging from Judicial
Discipline. 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. It is the only course of action open to a bench of co-
equal strength, when faced with the previous decision taken by a
bench with same strength.
2. 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, whereby, the Second Appeal filed by the
defendant-respondent was allowed, the judgment and decree
passed by the Sub-Judge, Padmanabhapuram dated 13.10.2003
was set aside and that of the Trial Court dated 30.06.1997 was
restored and confirmed.
3. 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-
14 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
cum-Judicial Magistrate at Eraniel. The basis for filing the suit was
that earlier in 1976, the respondents had filed a suit for ejectment
of the appellant which was registered as OS No. 70 of 1976. The
said suit was dismissed, First Appeal was dismissed and the Second
Appeal was also dismissed by the High 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 possession and enjoyment
of the entire suit property?
(iv). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent
injunction as prayed for?
(v). Whether the suit property is to be demarcated and northern
boundary is put up as prayed for?
(vi). What reliefs are the Plaintiffs entitled to?
7. Issue No. 2 related to the question whether the judgment of the High
Court in Second Appeal No. 2082 of 1990 related to the entire 8
cents of the property or whether it pertained only to the house in a
portion of the land in dispute.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 15
MARY PUSHPAM v. TELVI CURUSUMARY & ORS.
8. 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. With
respect to the other property, the suit was dismissed.
9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the appellant preferred an
Appeal which was registered as Appeal No. 169 of 1997. The Sub-
Judge vide judgement dated 13.10.2003 modified the judgement
and decree of the Trial Court and declared 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 said 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.
10. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Sub-Judge, the respondents
preferred second appeal before the High Court registered as Second
Appeal No. 451 of 2004. The High Court, by the impugned judgment
dated 21.07.2009, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the
Sub-Judge and restored the decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by
the same, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
12. The main argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that
the High Court in the first round in its judgment dated 30.03.1990
had specifically recorded that the dispute was with respect to 8
cents of land and the construction standing thereon. The Trial
Court or the High Court therefore in the present round of litigation
could not have confined it only to the construction and not the
entire portion of land measuring 8 cents. It is further submitted
that under the law of merger, the judgment of the Trial Court
and the 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.
16 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 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. It would
be relevant to refer to such facts noted in the said judgment. In the
opening paragraph the High Court mentioned as follows:
“The suit property is consisting of 8 cents. 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”.
The above clearly shows that not only the High Court notes that it
was 8 cents of land which was in dispute but also the Counsel for
the appellants therein (respondents herein) whose submissions are
recorded understood it in the same manner. Again, in paragraph
no.3, the High Court records as follows:
“In the sale deed dated 13.03.1974 (Exhibit A1) there is no
mention about the superstructure in which the respondent
herein is residing. The sale deed merely states about
the sale of 8 cents of land. 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:
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 17
MARY PUSHPAM v. TELVI CURUSUMARY & ORS.
“The courts below found that all the documents produced by
the respondent herein are in the name of the respondent.
Therefore, considering all these documents, the courts
below came to the conclusion that the respondent herein
is in possession of the suit property for more than the
statutory period and so she had perfected her title by
adverse possession.”
15. In the light of the above facts, arguments and findings recorded
by the High Court in its judgment dated 30.031990, apparently no
defence was left for the respondents to take as it was already held
that the appellant had perfected her rights by adverse possession
over the suit property which was 8 cents of land. The construction of
the appellant was standing over the 8 cents of land may be on part
of it but she was found in possession of the entire 8 cents.
16. The respondents never sought any clarification of the findings of the
High Court or the observations made therein nor did they assail the
same before any higher 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.1:
“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
1 (2000) 6 SCC 359
18 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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.”
18. The legal position on Coordinate Benches has further been elaborated
by this Court in State of Punjab & Anr. v. Devans Modern Breweries
Ltd. & Anr.2:
“339. Judicial discipline envisages that a coordinate Bench
follow the decision of an earlier coordinate Bench. If a
coordinate Bench does not agree with the principles of law
enunciated by another Bench, the matter may be referred
only to a larger Bench.
340. In Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edn.), Vol. 26
at pp. 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.”
19. We have already discussed about the importance of ensuring judicial
discipline and the same has also been upheld by various judgement
of this Court. In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community &
Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.3, this Court has summed up
the legal position of rules of judicial discipline as follows:
“12. ***
(1) The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered
by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any
subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength.
(2) A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent
from the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger
quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser
quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief
Justice and request for the matter being placed for
hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the
2 (2004) 11 SCC 26
3 (2005) 2 SCC 673
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 19
MARY PUSHPAM v. TELVI CURUSUMARY & ORS.
Bench whose decision has come up for consideration.
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.”
20. 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.
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.
22. In order to test the above agreement, we carefully examined the
judgement of the Trial Court as also the First Appellate Court.
What is discernible is that nowhere it is recorded the actual
boundary or the measurements of the property in possession of
the mother of the appellant (defendant therein). The respondents-
20 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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.
23. We are unable to appreciate the said argument of the respondents.
Suit for possession has to describe the property in question with
accuracy and all details of measurement and boundaries. This
was completely lacking. 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 as discussed above.
24. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 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,
Padmanabhapuram is restored and maintained.
25. There shall be no order as to costs.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Judicial Discipline"Sign in to search