Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on January 3, 2024 underscored the rule of ‘judicial discipline and propriety’ and the doctrine of precedents, saying it has a merit of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of their actions.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal also highlighted the importance of common law doctrine of merger that is rooted in the idea of maintenance of the decorum of hierarchy of courts and tribunals.

The court said the said 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 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 co-equal strength, when faced with a previous decision taken by a bench of same strength," the bench said.

The top court allowed an appeal filed against the Madras High Court's order of July 21, 2009 arising out of a civil suit concerning declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction in respect to the constructions raised by the appellant on eight cents of land. 

It noted the High Court's judgment of March 30, 1990 from the initial round recorded that the disputed property included eight 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," the bench said.

However, in the current case, the apex court found, 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 of March 30, 1990, from the first round of litigation.

After the High Court's judgment on March 30, 1990, the bench said 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 right cents of land. The construction of the appellant was standing over the eight cents of land may be on part of it but she was found in possession of the entire eight cents.

Cause Title: Mary Pushpam Vs Telvi Curusumary & Ors