IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Rule of ‘Judicial Discipline and Propriety’ and Doctrine of precedents has a merit of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions providing assurance to individuals as to consequences of their actions.
(2) Suit for possession has to describe property in question with accuracy and all details of measurement and boundaries.
(3) Doctrine of Merger – There cannot be, at the same time, more than one operative order governing same subject matter.

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-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.

8. The Trial Court, vide judgment 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 judgment dated 13.10.2003 modified the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and declared that the appellants were entitled for the