Back
1923 Supreme(SC) 34
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD BUCKMASTER, LORD DUNEDIN, LORD CARSON, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND LORD SALVESEN.
BOMMADEVARA NAGANNA NAIDU - Appellant
Versus
RAVI VENKATAPPAYYA - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : June 29. 1923.
Solicitor for appellants: Edward Dalgado.
Money recovered under a decree cannot be reclaimed unless the original decree is reversed or superseded. A judgment restoring concurrent findings of fact in one case does not automatically invalidate separate, independent decrees obtained for different periods.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 584 and 585; Rent Recovery Act, Section 9; State Act, Section 77 - Recovery of rent - Refund of excess rent paid under decrees - Whether money recovered under a decree can be recovered back if a separate decree is set aside on procedural grounds - Money recovered under a decree or judgment cannot be recovered back in a fresh suit or action while the decree or judgment under which it was recovered remains in force - The original decree or judgment must be taken to be subsisting and valid until it has been reversed or superseded by some ulterior proceeding.
(B) Effect of appellate judgment - A judgment setting aside a High Court's reversal of concurrent findings of fact does not necessarily reverse or supersede subsequent independent decrees obtained for different periods unless the decrees are subordinate and dependent on the reversed decree.
Facts of the case:
Landlords sought rent based on certain rates, while tenants claimed lower fixed rates. After a series of litigations, the highest court set aside a High Court judgment on procedural grounds, ruling that the High Court lacked the power to reverse concurrent findings of fact. During the pendency of that appeal, the landlords obtained decrees for rent for subsequent years. The tenants later sued for a refund of the excess rent paid under those subsequent decrees, arguing that the highest court's decision rendered those decrees void.
Findings of Court:
The decrees executed against the tenants were not reversed or superseded by the previous judgment of the highest court. The previous judgment only decided that the High Court had no power to reverse the decisions of the subordinate courts regarding the specific subject matter before it.
Issues: Whether the decrees obtained for rent for subsequent years were reversed or superseded by the highest court's judgment which set aside a High Court decree on the grounds of concurrent findings of fact.
Ratio Decidendi: A decree remains valid and subsisting until it is specifically reversed or superseded. A judgment that restores lower court findings of fact in one set of suits does not automatically invalidate separate decrees obtained in other suits for different periods, unless those decrees are mere subordinate and dependent decrees.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
- execution of decrees
-
civil procedure
-
property law
-
landlord and tenant
- rent recovery
-
landlord and tenant
Judgement
Law Rep. 50 Ind. App. 301 ( 1922- 1923) Bommadevara Naganna Naidu V. Ravi Venkatappayya
105
Consolidated Appeal (No. 105 of 1921) from a judgment and several decrees of the High Court (March 7, 1919) reversing decrees of the District Judge of Kistna.
The consolidated appeal arose out of two sets of suits. One set consisted of suits brought by the several respondents in 1916 against their landlords, the appellants, to recover the amount by which rent which they had paid in respect of faslis 1316 to 1322 under decrees in suits under s. 77 of Mad. Act I. of 1908 exceeded rent at the rate which in former suits had been decreed by the Revenue Court and the District Judge. The decree of the District Judge had been reversed in 1908, and rent at the rate claimed by the appellants decreed, but in 1914 the Privy Council (see L. R. 41 I. A. 258) had set aside the decree of the High Court and restored that of the District Judge. The second set consisted of suits by the appellants to recover rent in respect of fasli 1323.
The facts appear more fully from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The first set of suits was tried by the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada, the second by the Deputy Collector. In all the suits appeals were taken by the present appellants to the District Judge, who held that the tenants were entitled to recover.
Appeals by the present appellants to the High Court were heard by the Chief Justice (Sir John Wallis) and Kumara-swami Sastri J. The learned judges held that the District Judge had rightly decided that under the Privy Council judgment of 1914 the tenants were entitled to recover the excess rent which they had paid; in so holding they adopted the view of the majority of the Court in Jogesh Chunder Dutt
v. Kali Churn Dutt (I. L. R. 3 C. 30.) as to the effect of the judgment of the Privy Council in Shama Purshad Boy Chowdury v. Hurro Purshad Roy Chowdury. (10 Moo. I. A. 203.) They considered, however, that the District Judge had wrongly assumed that the rate which the Revenue Court fixed for fasli 1315 governed the later faslis. The decrees in all the suits accordingly were set aside, and the suits remained for trial.
1923. April 23. Dunne K.C., and Narasimham for the appellants. Reference was made to the two cases above mentioned, also to Marriot v. Hampton . ((1797) 7 T. R. 269; 2 Sm. L. C. (12th ed.) 403.)
The respondents did not appear.
June 29. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD CARSON. The appellants are the zamindars of North Vallur Estate in Kistna District, and the respondents are the occupancy tenants of certain villages in the said estate.
In 1904 the zamindar, father of the appellants, brought before the Court of the Head Assistant Collector of the Bezwada Division, Kistna District, forty-nine summary suits under s. 9 of the Madras Rent Recovery Act, 1865 , against the respondent raiyats to enforce the acceptance by them of pattas or leases of faslis 1314 and 1315 ( 1904 and 1905) which had been tendered to them. The zamindar demanded asara or varam rates for wet lands. The tenants on the other hand denied the claim of the zamindar, pleading that certain rates had been fixed in fasli 1292 ( 1882), which were alone recoverable and not the asara or varam rates (produce-sharing system) demanded by the zamindar. The suits were dismissed by the head Assistant Collector, Bezwada Division, finding as a fact that the conversion of the asara rates into cash payment in 1283 fasli, which was confirmed in 1292 fasli, and had been acted upon ever since, was a permanent arrangement, and that the plaintiff (the said zamindar) was not therefore entitled to impose on the tenants pattas on the asara basis. On appeal by the zamindar, the
Law Rep. 50 Ind. App. 301 ( 1922- 1923) Bommadevara Naganna Naidu V. Ravi Venkatappayya
106
District Judge affirmed the decrees of the Collector in respect of the finding of fact relative to the character of the arrangement of 1283 fasli, and upheld the orde
