Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
BADDULA LAKSHMAIAH & OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SRI ANJANEYA SWAMI TEMPLE & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/02/1996
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
SEN, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (3) 52 JT 1996 (3) 198
1996 SCALE (2)409
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Title to 29 acres of agricultural land, its possession
and recovery of mense profits, was sought by the respondent-
temple from the appellants. The trial court dismissed the
suit. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, in appeal,
in re-appraising the evidence adduced, prominently paid
attention to two documents containing certain recitals,
which partly supported the case of the plaintiff-temple
respondent and partly that of the defendants-appellants.
Reading them together, the learned Single Judge aimed to
reconcile the entries instead of holding them as
inconsistent. He made an attempt to gather the predominant
intention of the concerned authorities while preparing those
documents, by looking at both of them integrally. The
dispute plainly was whether the grant made in favour of the
Archaka was meant to be conferred on him personally or on
the temple through the Archaka. The trial court, as also the
learned Single Judge held that the grant was personal to the
Archaka and thus the alienations made by him thereafter were
in order. The result thereof was that the decision of the
trial court dismissing the suit was upheld by the learned
Single Judge. Further bout fought by the temple-respondent
before the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court bore
results inasmuch as the Bench, on fresh reconciliation of
those two documents, bearing in mind the other surrounding
circumstances, came to the view that the grant was intended
to be in favour of the temple and not to the Archaka
personally.
Mr. Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants,
inter alia contends that the Letters Patent Bench of the
High Court could not have upset a finding of fact recorded
by a learned Single Judge on fresh reconciliation of the two
documents, arriving at different results than those arrived
at earlier by the two courts aforementioned. Though the
argument sounds attractive, it does not bear scrutiny.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Against the orders of the trial court, first appeal lay
before the High Court, both on facts as well as law. It is
the internal working of the High Court which splits it into
different ’Benches’ and yet the court remains one. A Letters
Patent Appeal, as permitted under the Letters Patent, is
normally an intra-court appeal whereunder the Letters Patent
Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction. corrects its own
orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in
the Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of
a subordinate Court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High
Court exercises the powers of a Court of Error. So
understood, the appellate power under the Letters Patent is
quite distinct, in contrast to what is ordinarily understood
in procedural language. That apart the construction of the
aforementioned two documents involved, in the very nature of
their import, a mixed question of law and fact, well within
the posers of the Letters Patent Bench to decide. The Bench
was not powerless in that regard.
We are therefore of the view that the Letters Patent
Bench committed no error in re-doing the exercise to
reconcile those two questioned documents so as to get to the
result in favour of the temple-respondent. Except for the
point afore dealt with. no other point has been raised by
learned counsel.
For the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and is
hereby dismissed. No costs.