1964 (3) TMI 135 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court sets aside Madras High Court decree, remands case for further proceedings.

Penu Balakrishna Iyer and Ors. Versus Ariya M. Ramaswami Iyer and Ors.

Penu Balakrishna Iyer and Ors. Versus Ariya M. Ramaswami Iyer and Ors. - TMI Issues:Validity of the decree passed by the Madras High Court in second appeal No. 91 of 1955.Correctness, propriety, and legality of the decree.Interpretation of the judgment delivered by the learned Judge.Preliminary objection raised regarding the appeal process.Revocation of special leave granted to the appellants.Consideration of the remedy of a Letters Patent Appeal.Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136.Infirmity in the judgment under appeal.Setting aside the decree and remanding the matter to the Madras High Court.Analysis:The judgment in question revolves around an appeal by Special leave challenging the decree passed by the Madras High Court in second appeal No. 91 of 1955. The respondents had filed a suit against the appellants seeking a mandatory injunction for the removal of a masonry structure on a plot claimed to be a public street. The trial court decreed in favor of the respondents, but the Subordinate Judge at Kumbakonam ruled against them, setting aside the trial court's decree. The respondents then appealed to the Madras High Court, where a decree was passed by a Single Judge, which is the subject of challenge in the present appeal before the Supreme Court.A preliminary objection was raised regarding the appeal process, arguing that the appellants should have applied for leave to file a Letters Patent appeal before approaching the Supreme Court by special leave. The Court discussed the necessity of availing the remedy of a Letters Patent Appeal in cases where the High Court's decree has been passed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The judgment highlighted the limited circumstances under which special leave against a second appellate decision would be granted without resorting to a Letters Patent Appeal.The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Article 136 should be exercised based on the facts of each case, without a rigid rule governing the grant or revocation of special leave. Despite disapproving of the appellants' conduct in bypassing the Letters Patent Appeal process, the Court found the judgment under appeal deficient in meeting the requirements of a judgment under the Civil Procedure Code. Consequently, the Court set aside the decree and remanded the matter to the Madras High Court for proper disposal in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decree passed by the Madras High Court and remanding the case for further proceedings. The costs of the appeal were directed to be costs in the second appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and legal standards in delivering judgments.