Vs. M. Viswanathan  Insc 252 (21 February 2008)
& Altamas Kabir
O R D
APPEAL NO. 1817 OF 2004
Sukumaran & Anr. ... Appellants Versus Puthiya Kuttimappilakath Shalima ...
Respondent C.A. No. 8422/2001
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties submit
that the parties have compromised the matter and, therefore, the present appeal
has become infructuous.
appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs.
C.A. No. 1817/2004
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated
31.1.2003 passed by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 234/1997
whereby the learned Full Bench has answered the question referred to it by the
Division Bench and while answering the question referred to it, the Full Bench
itself decided the case on merits. The grievance of the appellant herein is
that in view of the law laid down Others (2006) 6 SCC 258, the Full Bench
should not have gone on the merits of the matter and the Full Bench should have
after answering the reference remitted the matter back to the Division Bench
for deciding the Civil Revision Petition.
brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that a Reference
was made by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kearala, which reads as under
:- "Are the legal heirs of a deceased tenant entitled to the protection of
Section 11(17) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act?"
This Reference was answered by the Full Bench in para 18 of the impugned order
in the following words, "the benefits under Section 11(17) to the legal
heirs/tenants cannot be accepted as laying down the correct law."
19 of the impugned order the learned Full Bench asked counsel for both the
parties to advance arguments on merits also as the proceedings were initiated
about a decade back and asked counsel for the parties for disposing of the
revision petition itself and accordingly arguments were heard on merits of the
Revision Petition also and Revision Petition was disposed of by dismissing the
same and directing the appellant- tenant to surrender possession within six
months and directing the appellant to file an affidavit of undertaking to that
against the said order dated 31.1.2003 of the Full Bench, the present appeal by
special leave has been filed before this Court.
have heard learned counsel for the parties. The principal submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant is that the Full Bench should not have
disposed of the revision petition on merits. He further submitted that once the
Court directed the counsels for the parties to make submission on merits, they
had no option but to address the Court on merits of the matter. He, however,
submitted that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Kesho
Nath (supra) and Kerala State Science (supra) the Full Bench should not have
decided the revision petition on merits and after answering the reference made
to it by the Division Bench, it should have remitted the revision petition to
the Division Bench for decision in accordance with law. The submission of
learned counsel for the appellant appears to be correct.
the case of Kesho Nath (supra), in almost identical situation, this Court has
taken the view that when a reference is made to a larger Bench, the larger
Bench should answer the reference and thereafter remit the case to the
appropriate Bench for decision on merits. In that case also the learned Single
Judge had referred the matter to the Division Bench on the question
"whether the order dated January 21, 1963
made by the Settlement commissioner was final and binding in the present
appeal, and if so, what is its effect upon the point in controversy in the
present appeal?" The Division Bench by order dated April 7, 1980 disposed
of the appeal on merits and dismissed it with costs and held that the order
dated January 21, 1963 made by the Chief Settlement commissioner was not final
and binding in the civil proceedings and it did not exclude the jurisdiction of
the civil court to decide whether there was any encroachment by the respondent
on the property conveyed to the appellant under the sale certificate dated June
7, 1963 read with the corrigendum dated September 22, 1964 issued by the
District Rent and Managing Officer, Simla, pursuant to the auction sale held on
September 25, 1955.
This Court held that it is obvious that since only the aforesaid question of
law was referred by the single Judge to the Division Bench, the Division Bench
should have sent the matter back to the Single Judge after deciding the
question of law referred to them.
instead the Division Bench proceeded to dispose of the second appeal on merits
and dismissed it with costs. This Court further observed that, "We think
that the Division Bench was in error in following this procedure. The Division
Bench ought to have sent the appeal back to the single Judge with the answer
rendered by them to the question referred by the single Judge and left it to
the single Judge to dispose of the second appeal according to law."
Same view was reiterated by this Court in the case of Kerala State Science
(supra). In that case this Court after referring to earlier decisions in para 8
held as under :- "It is fairly well settled that when reference is made on
a specific issue either by a learned Single Judge or Division Bench to a larger
Bench, i.e., Division Bench or Full Bench or Constitution Bench, as the case
may be, the larger bench cannot adjudicate upon an issue which is not the
question referred to."
the case at hand also, almost an identical situation had taken place that a
reference was made by the learned Division Bench of the Kerala High Court to
the Full Bench and the Full Bench after answering the reference went on to
decide the revision petition itself on merits, which the Full Bench had no
jurisdiction to do as the revision petition was not referred to the Full Bench
for decision. Since, only reference was made to the Full Bench, the Full Bench
should have answered the question referred to it and remitted the matter to the
Division Bench for deciding the revision petition on merits.
we set aside that part of the impugned order dated 31.1.2003 whereby the Full
Bench has dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant herein. We
make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion with regard to the issue
which was referred by the Division Bench to the Full Bench. We are only
examining the matter whether the Full Bench could have disposed of the revision
petition itself or not. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal to the
extent that the order of the Full Bench deciding the civil revision petition
filed by the appellant herein was decided on merits by the Full Bench was not
correct. The revision petition filed by the appellant shall stand revived and
be placed for hearing before a Division Bench, which shall dispose of the same
in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Since the matter is old,
we request the Division Bench to dispose of the revision petition
The appeal is allowed to the extent indicted hereinabove. No order as to costs.