LexMORAN MAR BASSELIOS CATHOLICOS AND ANOTHER versus MOST REV. MAR POULOSE ATHANASIUS AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
•954
MORAN MAR BASSELIOS CATHOLICOS
~
May 21
AND ANOTHER
ti.
THE MOST REV. MAR POULOSE ATHANASIUS
AND OTHERS.
[S. R. DAS, GHULAM HASAN
and JAGANNADHADAS JJ.]
Travancoi·e Code of Civil Procedure (Vlll of 1100) s. 87-Review
provisions-Similar
to
provisions
of Order
47,
rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Court's misconception of an alleged
concession by advocate of a party-Remedy in such a case-Errorl
apparent on the face of the record-Ejectment suit-Plaintiff's duty
-Travancore Regulation IV of 1099-United State of Travancore-
Cochin High Court Act V of 1125. s. 25-Constitution of
India,
arts. 214, 225-Appeal filed before June, 1949, in Travancore High
Court-Disposal of-By the High Court of Part B State of Travan-
core-Cochin.
The provisions of the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure are
similar in terms to Order 47,
rule 1, of the Code of Civil Pro-
cedure 1908 and an application for review is circumscribed by the
definitive limits fixed by the language used therein.
The words "any other sufficient reason"
mean a reason suffi-
cient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule.
It is well settled that in an ejectment suit the plaintiff
must
succeed on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness
of the defendant's case.
It is an error apparent on the face
of the record if the judg-
ment does not deal effectively and determine an important issue in
the case on which depends the title of the plaintiff and the main-
tainability of the suit.
To decide against a party on matters which do not come with-
in the issues on which parties went to trial clearly amounts to an
error apparent on the face of the record.
Where the error complained of is that the Court assumed that
a concession had been made when in fact none had been made or
th2.t
the Court misconceived the terms of the concession or the
scope and extent of it or the attinide taken up by the party and
has been misled by a misconception
of such
alleged concession,
such error must be regarded as a sufficient reason analogous to an
error on the face of the
record within the meaning of Order 47,
rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Such error will not generally appear on the record and will
have to be brought before the Court by means of an affidavit.
A suit filed in 1938
in the Court of the District Judge at
Kottayam {Travancore)
was
dismissed.
The
plaintiff's
appeal
•
,
....
. ...
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
521
against the decree was allowed by a Full Bench of the High Court
of Travancore.
A review application filed
by
the defendants
against
the
judgment on the ground
that it contained
several
mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record was dismis-
sed by the High Court. The High Court declined to grant a
certificate under article 133.
The defendants were
granted spe-
cial leave
to appeal by the Supreme Court. Consequent upon
political changes in India culminating in the adoption of the new
Constitution of India, there were changes in the judicial administra-
tion in the State of Travancore. Up to the end of June, 1949,
the Travancore High Court Act (Regulation IV of 1099) was in
force in the State of Travancore. Section 11
of
the
Regulation
provided that the judgments of a Full Bench from
the decrees of
District
Courts
involving certain amount or value of subject-
matter in suits as well as
in appeals shall be submitted
to the
Maharaja for
confirmation by his Sign ManuaL Section 12 of the
Regulation applied as far as may be the provisions of section 11 to
the judgments after review.
In May, 1949, came the Covenant of
Merger between the rulers
of Travancore and Cochin which, inter
alia, provided for a Rajpramukh.
In July, 1949, came Ordinance
II of 1124
repealing
Regulation IV of 1099.
Clause
25 of the
Ordinance provided that a Full Bench shall hear
and decide
the
appeals, inter alia, from
the
decrees of the -District Courts etc.
involving certain amount or value
of subject-matter.
Clause
26
related to a review of the judgment by a Full Bench. The provi-
sions relating to the jurisdiction and powers of High Court were
substantially reproduced in a later Act (V of 1125) and were conti-
nued by articles 214 and 225 of the Constitution of India.
The advocate for the respondents contended in the Supreme
Court that the review application, in view of the changes referred
tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.