MARY PUSHPAM versus TELVI CURUSUMARY & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 11 · Decided: 03-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 11 : 2024 INSC 8
Case Details
Mary Pushpam
v.
Telvi Curusumary & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 9941 of 2016)
03 January 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
As regards the principles of judicial discipline, if the lower or 
subordinate Courts could contradict the decisions of higher courts.
Headnotes
Judicial Discipline – Rule and importance of:
Held: Rule of ‘Judicial Discipline and Propriety’ promotes certainty 
and consistency in judicial decisions providing assurance to 
individuals as to the consequences of their actions – 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 – Following the 
principles of judicial discipline, lower or subordinate Courts do not 
have the authority to contradict the decisions of higher courts – 
On facts, the trial court and the High Court, in the second round 
of litigation, violated the judicial discipline by adopting a position 
contrary to the High Court’s final judgment dated 30.03.1990, from 
the first round of litigation – Judgment dated 30.03.1990 attained 
finality and should be regarded as the conclusive and binding order 
from the initial litigation – Interpreting the said judgment which 
was clear in itself any differently would clearly amount to judicial 
indiscipline – Also the Sub-Judge in its judgment rightly observed 
that the trial court had no business to interpret the judgment of 
the High Court dated 30.03.1990 in any other way than what was 
recorded therein – Thus, the impugned judgment and order of 
the High Court is set aside and that of the first appellate court is 
restored. [Paras 1, 15, 16, 20]
12
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Suit – Suit for possession – Accurate description of the actual 
boundary or the measurements of the property – Requirement:
Held: Suit for possession has to describe the property in question 
with accuracy and all details of measurement and boundaries – 
When the same is lacking, the suit for possession with respect to 
such a property would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of 
its identifiability. [Para 23]
Doctrines – Doctrine of merger – Basis of:
Held: Doctrine of merger is rooted in the idea of maintenance 
of the decorum of hierarchy of courts and tribunals – Doctrine is 
based on the simple reasoning that there cannot be, at the same 
time, more than one operative order governing the same subject 
matter. [Para 17]
Doctrines – Doctrine of precedent – Rule of:
Held: It promotes certainty and consistency in judicial decisions 
providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of their 
actions – 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. [Para 1]
List of Citations and Other References
Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., [2000] 
1 Suppl. SCR 538 : (2000) 6 SCC 359; State of 
Punjab & Anr. v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. & Anr., 
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 930 : (2004) 11 SCC 26; Central 
Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. vs. State 
of Maharashtra & Anr., [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 1054 : 
(2005) 2 SCC 673 – referred to.
Lists of Key Words
Judicial Discipline; Judicial Indiscipline; Judicial Propriety; Doctrine 
of precedents; Consistency in judicial decisions; Co-equal quorum; 
Doctrine of merger; Maintenance of the decorum; Hierarchy of 
courts and tribunals; Civil suit; Declaration of title; Possession; 
Permanent injunction; Accurate measurement and boundaries.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
13
MARY PUSHPAM v. TELVI CURUSUMARY & ORS.
Other Case Details Including Impugned Order and 
Appearances
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.9941 of 2016
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2009 of the High Court 
of Madras in SA No.451 of 2004.
Appearances:
Ms. N. S. Nappinai, V. Balaji, Atul Sharma, Asaithambi, C. Kannan, 
Nizamuddin, S. Devendran, Rakesh K. Sharma, Advs. for the 
Appellant.
Vikas Mehta, Vinayak Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of The Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1.	
The rule of ‘Judicial Discipline and Propriety’ and the Do

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.