The Supreme Court while stressing the importance of judicial discipline has directed the High Courts to strictly adhere to the 'Doctrine of Merger' which clearly states that there cannot be at the same time, more than one operative order governing the same subject matter.The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal while adjudicating upon an appeal observed that when a decision of a co-ordinate 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-appellant herein had filed a civil appeal assailing the correctness of the judgment and order passed in 2009 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 in 2003 was set aside and that of the Trial Court dated in 1997 was restored and confirmed.The plaintiff-appellant had instituted a civil suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction against the respondents in the Court of District Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate. The basis for filing the suit was that earlier in 1976, the respondents had filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant. The said suit was dismissed, First Appeal was dismissed and the Second Appeal was also dismissed by the High Court in 1990. The same became final as it was not carried any further. 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.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. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the appellant preferred an Appeal. The SubJudge 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. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Sub-Judge, the respondents preferred second appeal before the High Court in 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.The main argument advanced on behalf of the appellant was 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 was 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 was that judgment alone which has to be read as final and binding between the parties. It was 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.The Court at the outset noted that in the judgement of the High Court in the first round dated 30.03.1990, it was 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 and that the Counsel for the appellants therein (respondents herein) whose submissions are recorded understood it in the same manner.
The Court was of the view that 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.It thus concluded that 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 and therefore the judgement dated 30.03.1990 attained finality.The Court pointed out that 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", the court observed.In background of above, the court highlighted doctrine of merger which is a common law doctrine that is rooted in the idea of maintenance of the decorum of hierarchy of courts and tribunals.The Court accordingly cited its judgements describing the said doctrine like Kunhayammed & Ors Vs. State of Kerala & ANR, 2000 Latest Caselaw 361 SC, State of Punjab & ANR Vs. M/S Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. & ANR, 2003 Latest Caselaw 576 SC, Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 Latest Caselaw 99 SC,.Remarking that following the principles of judicial discipline, lower or subordinate Courts do not have the authority to contradict the decisions of higher Courts, the court put out that in the present matter however, 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 Court while rejecting the argument of the respondents, stressed that suit for possession has to describe the property in question with accuracy and all details of measurement and boundaries.
TAGS: High Court Judgment 1990 Land Possession Case Adverse Possession Rights
