THIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS AND ANR. versus THALLAPPAKA ANANTHACHARYULU AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 538 · Decided: 10-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THIRUMALA TIRUPA TI DEV ASTHANAMS AND ANR. 
v. 
THALLAPPAKA ANANTHACHARYULU AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 
B 
[S.N. VARJAVA AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 32 and 226. 
Writ of Prohibition-Writ Jurisdiction-Power of Court-Plaintiff's 
appeal against grant of patta to defendants in respect of suit land 
C dismissed-Writ petition also dismissed-Appeal and review petitions too 
dismissed by Supreme Court-Subsequently, plaintiffs filed civil suit for 
declaration of ownership and also filed appeal against grant of patta to 
defendants-But High Court issued writ of Prohibition restraining the 
courts below from proceeding in the matters on the grounds that the suit 
D was barred under Section 14 and also on the principles of res judicata/ 
estoppel-Correctness of-Held: A writ of Prohibition must be issued only 
in rarest of rare cases-such power cannot be allowed to be used "as a 
cloak of an appeal in disguise"-Civil court had jurisdiction to decide 
whether suit could be entertained and whether the proceedings were 
E barred on principles of res judicata/estoppel-High Court should not have 
usurped the jurisdiction of civil court-Writ of Prohibition set aside-Civil 
court directed to decide maintainability of suit as a preliminary issue and 
also whether the suit was barred on the principles of res judicata/ 
estoppel-Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) lnams (Abolition and Conversion 
F into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, S. 14. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 14 Rule 2-Scope and ambit of-Held: 
Civil Court competent to decide its own jurisdiction and questions regarding 
G maintainability of suit-Civil court also competent to decide whether a suit 
was barred on principles of res judicata/estoppel. 
The appellants-plaintiffs filed an appeal against grant of patta to 
the respondents-defendant in respect of the suit land, which was 
dismissed. Writ Petition was also dismissed. Appeal and review petitions 
H too dismissed by this Court. 
538 
TIURUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS r. THALLAPPAKA ANANTHACHARYULU 
539 
Thereafter, the appellants filed a civil suit seeking a declaration A 
that it was the absolute owner of the suit land and for a direction to 
the respondents to surrender possession of the same. The appellant also 
filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under 
Section 7(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition 
and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 challenging the grant ofpatta B 
in favour of the respondents. 
The respondents filed two writ petitions before the High Court for 
issuance of a writ of Prohibition: one concerning the suit and the other 
concerniRg the appeal before the RDO restraining them from proceeding 
further in the matters on the grounds that the suit and appeal were C 
barred under Section 14 of the Act and also on the principles of res 
judicata/estoppel. The High Court aHowed the writ petitioos. Hence tire 
appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. A writ of prohibition must be issued only in rarest of 
rare cases. Judicial disciplines of the highest order have to be exer4:ised 
whilst issuing such writs. The writ jurisdiction is original jurisdiction 
distinct from the appellate jurisdiction. An appeal cannot be allowed 
D 
to be disguised in the form of a writ. In other words, this power cannot E 
be allowed to be used "as a cloak of an appeal in disguise". Lax use 
of such a power would impair the dignity and integrity of the 
subordinate court and could also lead to chaotic consequences. It would 
undermine the confidence of the subordinate court. There was no total 
lack of jurisdiction in the civil court. It could not be denied that the 
civil court, before which the suit was pending, had powers to decide F 
on the maintainability of the suit and to decide on the questions of its 
jurisdiction. The civil court had jurisdiction to decide whether the suit 
was barred by Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams 
{Abo1ition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 or on principles 
of res judicata/estoppel. Thus unless there was some very cogent or G 
strong reason the High Court should not have prevented the court of 
competent jurisdiction from deciding these questions. In other words, 
the High Court should not usurp the jurisdiction of the civil court to 
decide these questions. [554-B-E] 
2. In the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 there are sufficient H 
540 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003

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