1973 (4) TMI 127 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules no restitution under Section 144 CPC in Archak dispute, affirms civil right.

Banchhanidhi Das Versus Bhanu Sahuani and Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of restitution under Section 144 CPC did not apply as the defendant did not benefit from the erroneous judgment. ... - Issues Involved:1. Restitution under Section 144 Civil Procedure Code (CPC)2. Hereditary Archakship and possession of deity's properties3. Entitlement to arrear dues and costsIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Restitution under Section 144 Civil Procedure Code (CPC):The primary issue revolves around whether the doctrine of restitution under Section 144 CPC is applicable. Section 144 CPC states that where a decree or order is varied or reversed, the court of first instance shall cause such restitution to be made to place the parties in the position they would have occupied but for such decree or order. The Supreme Court has reiterated that the doctrine of restitution imposes an obligation on the party who received the benefit of the erroneous judgment to make restitution to the other party for what he had lost. The conditions for restitution include an erroneous judgment, benefit received by a party due to that judgment, and the reversal of the erroneous judgment on appeal.In this case, the erroneous judgment did not grant any benefit to the defendant No. 1, as his possession of the temple was an independent act of high-handedness and not a consequence of the erroneous judgment. Therefore, no obligation to restitute possession was cast on defendant No. 1 or his legal representatives.2. Hereditary Archakship and Possession of Deity's Properties:The second issue concerns the declaration that plaintiff No. 2 was the hereditary Archak of the deity. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate courts upheld this dismissal except for the High Court, which declared plaintiff No. 2 as the hereditary Archak. Despite this declaration, there was no consequential relief for possession or salary, and the lower appellate court dismissed the restitution application, stating that there was nothing for restitution as no benefit was gained by the other party from an erroneous judgment.The High Court affirmed that the plaintiff No. 2 is entitled to perform the duties of the hereditary Archak, but this does not translate into a right to restitution of possession under Section 144 CPC since the possession was not acquired through an erroneous judgment.3. Entitlement to Arrear Dues and Costs:The plaintiff No. 2 also claimed arrear dues and costs, which were not determined in the suit. The Munsif allowed restitution of possession but rejected the claims for arrear dues and costs, leaving those questions open for consideration during execution proceedings. The lower appellate court dismissed the restitution application entirely, and the High Court upheld this decision, stating that the claim for arrear salary was beyond the scope of the doctrine of restitution under Section 144 CPC.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the restitution prayed for was rightly rejected by the lower appellate court. The appeal was dismissed without costs, and it was noted that the declaration of hereditary Archakship vested plaintiff No. 2 with a civil right. Any interference with this right would give him a cause of action for appropriate remedy in a court of law. The respondents conceded that plaintiff No. 2 is entitled to perform the duties of the hereditary Archak without interference.