{"id":203958,"date":"1967-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967"},"modified":"2017-03-16T08:11:53","modified_gmt":"2017-03-16T02:41:53","slug":"tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967","title":{"rendered":"Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas … vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas … vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 372, \t\t 1968 SCR (1) 455<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTRIBHUVANDAS PURSHOTTAMDAS THAKUR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRATILAL MOTILAL PATEL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n05\/09\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nSHELAT, J.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR  372\t\t  1968 SCR  (1) 455\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1968 SC 822\t (5)\n R\t    1969 SC  69\t (3)\n R\t    1974 SC2192\t (117)\n\n\nACT:\nCode  of  Civil\t Procedure, 1908,  O.  29,  r.\t89--Mortgage\ndecree--Sale  in execution  of--Judgment-creditor  extending\ntime  for  payment of mortgage amount--Amount  specified  in\nproclamation  of  sale not deposited--If condition  of\trule\nsatisfied.\nBombay\tPublic\tTrusts\tAct, ss. 36(a)\tand  56B--'Sale'  if\nincludes court sale in execution of decree--Suit to  enforce\nmortgage  decree  if  suit or  proceeding  affecting  public\nreligious    or\t  charitable\tpurpose--Precedents--Binding\nnature--Nature of order of reference to Larger Bench.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe property of a trust was sold in execution of a  mortgage\ndecree.\t The trustees sought to set aside the sale under  0.\n21,  r.\t 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure,  They  deposited\nfive  per  cent\t of the purchase money for  payment  to\t the\nauction purchaser and claimed that the mortgagee had  agreed\nto  give them time for payment of the mortgage\tamount,\t and\nhas  agreed in the meantime to abandon the  application\t for\nexecution.   The subordinate judge set aside the  sale.\t  In\nappeal\tthe District Court reversed that order holding\tthat\nsince  the  trustees failed to comply with r. 89  of  0.  21\nrequiring  the\tjudgment-debtor\t to  deposit  in  court\t for\npayment\t to  the decree-holder the amount specified  in\t the\nproclamation of sale for the recovery of which the sale\t was\nordered,  the  executing court had no  jurisdiction  to\t set\naside  the  sale.   A single Judge of  the  High  Court,  in\nrevision, set aside the order on the ground that the sale of\nthe  mortgaged property, which belonged to a  public  trust,\nwithout\t the  sanction\tof  the\t Charity  Commissioner\t was\nprohibited  by s. 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act and\t was\non that account invalid.  The ,High Court remanded the\tcase\nto the District Court.\tIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD:The  order\t of the High Court should be set  aside\t and\nthat of the District Court restored.\n(i)Transactions\t of mortgage, exchange or gift or  lease  of\nany  immovable property in clauses (a) and (b) of s.  36  of\nthe Bombay Public Trusts Act contemplated to be made by\t the\nTrustees  are voluntary transactions and in the\t absence  of\nany clear provision in the Act, the expression 'Sale' in cl.\n(a)  only means transfer of property by the trustees  for  a\nprice  and does not include a Court sale in execution  of  a\ndecree. [457F-G]\nA  suit to enforce a mortgage or a proceeding to  enforce  a\nmortgage decree against property belonging to a public trust\nis  not a suit or proceeding in which a\t question  affecting\npublic\treligious or charitable purpose is  involved  within\nthe  meaning  of s. 56B of the Act and therefore it  is\t not\nobligatory  upon  the court to issue notice to\tthe  Charity\nCommissioner. [458C-D]\n(ii)  An order setting aside a Court sale in execution of  a\nmortgage decree cannot be obtained under 0. 21 r. 89 of\t the\nCode  of Civil Procedure by merely depositing five per\tcent\nof  the purchase money for payment to the auction  purchaser\nand  persuading the decree holder to abandon  the  execution\nproceeding. [459G-H]\n456\n(iii)A\tSingle Judge of a High Court is ordinarily bound  to\naccept\t as  correct  judgments\t of  Courts  of\t  coordinate\njurisdiction and of Division Benches and of the Full Benches\nof his Court and of this Court.\t Any reference to s. 165  of\nthe Evidence Act or the Oath of Office of a High Court judge\nis  irrelevant and will not justify a judge in ignoring\t the\nrule relating to the binding nature of precedents.\nJaisri\tSahu  v. Rajdewan Dubey,<\/a> [1962] 2 S.C.R.  558;\tLala\nShri Bhagwan v. Shri Ram Chand, [1965] 3 S.C.R. 218; Pinjare\nKarimbhai v. Shukla Hariprasad, 3 Guj.\tL.R. 529; Haridas v.\nRatansey,  23  Bom.   L.R. 802; and  State  'of\t Gujarat  v.\nGordhandas, 3 Guj.  L.R. 269.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 500 of 1965.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nFebruary  5114,\t 1963  of the Gujarat High  Court  in  Civil
\nRevision Application No. 597 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
M.   V. Goswami, for respondents Nos. 1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
M.S.  K.  Sastri,  S.  P. Nayar for  R.\t H.  Dhebar,  for
\nrespondent No. 7.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShah,  J.  Respondents 1 to 4 and respondent No. 6  are\t the
\ntrustees  of a public trust, styled “Shri Tricumraiji”.\t  In
\nMarch  1950 the trustees mortgaged a house belonging to\t the
\ntrust  to one Saheba to secure repayment of Rs.\t 5,000.\t  An
\naction\tinstituted by the mortgagee against the trustees  to
\nenforce\t the  mortgage was compromised, and it\twas  decreed
\nthat the trustees do pay Rs. 3,910 due under the mortgage by
\nmonthly instalments of Rs. 100 each and in default of  three
\ninstalments the entire amount remaining unpaid shall  become
\ndue  and  recoverable  from  the  mortgagee  property.\t The
\ntrustees  did not pay the instalments due under the  decree,
\nand  in\t an application for execution by the  mortgage(\t the
\nmortgaged  property was put up for sale and the bid  of\t the
\nappellant was accepted for Rs. 5,000 by the executing Court.
\nThe,  trustees thereafter applied under 0. 21 r. 89  of\t the
\nCode  of  Civil\t Procedure for setting aside  the  sale\t and
\ndeposited  Rs.\t250  being 5 %\tof  the\t purchase-money\t for
\npayment\t to  the  appellant and Rs. 6  for  payment  to\t the
\nmortgagee,  claiming  that  in consideration  o\t the  latter
\namount the mortgagee had agreed to “give to them six months’
\nfor  payment of the mortgage amount”, and had agree, in\t the
\nmeantime  to  abandon the application  for  execution.\t The
\nSubordinate Judge passed an order disposing of the execution
\napplication  and  directed that Rs. 250 out  of\t the  amount
\ndeposit, by the trustees be paid over to the appellant.\t  In
\nappeal\tagainst\t that order by the appellant,  the  District
\nCourt reversed the order holding that since the trustees bad
\nfailed\tto  comply with the requirements of r. 89 of  0.  21
\nCode  of  Civil\t Procedure,  the  executing  Court  had\t  no
\njurisdiction to set aside the sale.  The High
\n457<\/span>
\nCourt  of Gujarat in exercise of powers under s.115  of\t the
\nCode of Civil Procedure set aside the order of the  District
\nCourt.\tRaju, J.., held that sale of the mortgaged  property
\nwhich  belonged to a public trust. without the\tsanction  of
\nthe  Charity Commissioner being prohibited by s. 36  of\t the
\nBombay\tPublic\tTrusts Act, was invalid, and  on  that\tview
\nremanded the case to the District Court “for decision on all
\nthe  points correctly arising out of the  matter”.   Against
\nthat  order,  this appeal has been  preferred  with  special
\nleave.\n<\/p>\n
The mortgaged property belongs to a public trust within\t the
\nmeaning of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.  Section 36 of\t the
\nBombay Public Trusts Act reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Notwithstanding\tanything  contained  in\t the
\n\t      instrument of trust-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a) no sale, mortgage, exchange or gift of any
\n\t      immovable property, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b) no lease for a period exceeding ten  years
\n\t      in  the  case of agricultural land  or  for  a
\n\t      period  exceeding three years in the  case  of
\n\t      non-agricultural land or a building,
\n\t      belonging\t to a public trust, shall  be  valid
\n\t      without  the previous sanction of the  Charity
\n\t      Commissioner.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Raju,  J., was of the opinion that the expression ‘sale’  in
\ns.  36(a) includes a sale of the property of a public  trust
\nin execution of a decree of a civil Court for recovery of  a
\ndebt  due  by  the  trust, and on that\taccount\t a  sale  in
\nexecution of a decree held without the previous sanction  of
\nthe  Charity  Commissioner must be deemed invalid.   We\t are
\nunable\t to   agree   with   that   view.    Obviously\t the
\ntransactions  of mortgage, exchange or gift or lease of\t any
\nimmovable property in cls. (a) & (b) contemplated to be made
\nby  the\t trustees  are voluntary transactions,\tand  in\t the
\nabsence\t of any clear provision in the Act,  the  expression
\n“sale”\tin cl. (a) would only mean transfer of\tproperty  by
\nthe  trustees  for  a price.  Section 36 occurs\t in  Ch.   V
\nrelating  to  ‘Accounts\t and  Audit’,  and  is\tone  of\t the
\nprovisions  which imposes restrictions on the powers of\t the
\ntrustees.  There is nothing to indicate, either in the words
\nof  the section, or in the context in which it occurs,\tthat
\nthe   sale  prohibited\twithout\t sanction  of  the   Charity
\nCommissioner includes a Court sale in execution of a decree.
\nFor  the  purpose  of the present case. we do  not  deem  it
\nnecessary  to express any opinion on the question whether  a
\nsale  in  exercise of authority derived from  the  trustees,
\ne.g. a covenant for sale under an English mortgage  executed
\nby  the\t trustees  or a sale in terms of  a  consent  decree
\nattracts  the application. of s. 36 of the Act.\t We have  no
\ndoubt,\thowever, that the Legislature did not intend to\t put
\nany restriction upon the power of the Civil Court  executing
\na decree for recovery
\n458<\/span>
\nof money due from the trust, by sale of the property of\t the
\ntrust.\t The section imposes a fetter upon the power of\t the
\ntrustees:  it  is not intended thereby to  confer  upon\t the
\nCharity Commissioner an overriding authority upon actions of
\nthe Civil Court in execution of decrees.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Judge also held that s. 56B of the Bombay Public
\nTrusts\tAct  which  provides  that “in\tany  suit  or  legal
\nproceedings  in\t which\tit appears to  the  Court  that\t any
\nquestion affecting a public religious or charitable  purpose
\nis  involved, the Court shall not proceed to determine\tsuch
\nquestion  until after notice “has been given to the  Charity
\nCommissioner”,\tmade it obligatory upon the Court  to  issue
\nnotice\tto  the Charity Commissioner, and  if  that  officer
\ndesires\t to  be\t joined\t as a party, to\t implied  him  in  a
\nproceeding  to enforce a mortgage by sale of  the  mortgaged
\nproperty.   In\tour  judgment,\tthat  view  also  cannot  be
\nsustained.  A suit to enforce a mortgage or a proceeding  to
\nenforce\t a mortgage decree against property belonging  to  a
\npublic trust is not a suit or proceeding in which a question
\naffecting  a  public  religious\t or  charitable\t purpose  is
\ninvolved.\n<\/p>\n
The  District Court was, in our judgment, right\t in  holding
\nthat  the requirements of 0. 21 r. 89 of the Code  of  Civil
\nProcedure were not complied with and the Subordinate,  Judge
\nhad no power to set aside the sale held in execution of\t the
\ndecree.\t Order 21 r. 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure which
\nin terms applies to sale of immovable property in “execution
\nof a decree” which expression includes execution of a decree
\nfor  sale of mortgaged property, enables any  person  either
\nowning\tsuch  property\tor holding an  interest\t therein  by
\nvirtue of a title to apply to have the sale Set aside on his
\ndepositing in Court,-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum  equal
\n\t      to five per cent. of the purchase-money, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)  for\tpayment to  the\t decree-holder,\t the
\n\t      amount  specified in the proclamation of\tsale
\n\t      as that for the recovery of which the sale was
\n\t      ordered, less any amount which may, since\t the
\n\t      date  of such proclamation of sale, have\tbeen
\n\t      received by the decree-holder.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Rule  89  requires that two primary conditions\trelating  to
\ndeposit must be fulfilled: the applicant must deposit in the
\nCourt  for  payment  to the auction purchaser  5  %  of\t the
\npurchase-money: he must also deposit the amount specified in
\nthe  proclamation  of sale less any amount received  by\t the
\ndecree-holder  since  the date of proclamation of  sale\t for
\npayment\t to  the decree-holder.\t In the\t present  case,\t the
\ntrustees  of the trust had deposited Rs. 250 for payment  to
\nthe  auction  purchaser.   They also deposited\tRs.  63\t for
\npayment\t to the decree-holder, but it is common ground\tthat
\nthe  claim  of\tthe mortgagee was  not\tsatisfied,  by\tthat
\ndeposit.  The
\n459<\/span>
\nfirst  condition was, therefore, fulfilled, but\t the  second
\ncondition of 0 .21 r. 89 was not fulfilled.\n<\/p>\n
It was urged, however, that the mortgagee having agreed\t to,
\nabandon the execution proceeding and to wait for six  months
\nfor  receiving\tpayment\t of  the  mortgage  dues  from\t the
\ntrustees, abandonment of the execution proceeding was in law
\nequivalent  to, payment to the decree-holder of\t the  amount
\nspecified  in the proclamation of sale for the\trecovery  of
\nwhich  the  sale  was ordered.\tThis in our  Judgment  is  a
\nfutile argument.  By abandoning the execution proceeding the
\nclaim of the creditor is not extinguished: he is entitled to
\ncommence  fresh proceedings for sale of the property.\tRule
\n89 of 0. 21 is intended to confer a right upon the judgment-
\ndebtor,\t even  after the property is sold,  to\tsatisfy\t the
\nclaim  of  the decree-holder and to compensate\tthe  auction
\npurchaser  by  paying him 5 % of  the  purchase-money.\t The
\nprovision,  is\tnot  intended to defeat\t the  claim  of\t the
\nauction\t purchaser,  unless  the  decree  is  simultaneously
\nsatisfied.  When the judgment creditor agrees to extend\t the
\ntime for payment of the amount for a specified period and in
\nthe meanwhile agrees to receive interest accruing due on the
\namount\tof the decree, the condition requiring the  judgment
\ndebtor\tto deposit in Court for payment to the\tdecreeholder
\nthe  amount  specified in the proclamation of sale  for\t the
\nrecovery of which the sale was ordered. cannot be deemed  to
\nbe complied with.\n<\/p>\n
Our  attention was invited to several decisions in which  it
\nwas held, that if the judgment-debtor instead of  depositing
\nin  Court the amount specified in the proclamation  of\tsale
\nfor  recovery of which the property is sold,  satisfies\t the
\nclaim\tof   the  decree-holder\t under\t the   decree,\t the
\nrequirements of 0. 21 r. 89 are complied with: Subbayya\t  v.
\nVenkata\t Subba\tReddi(1), Muthuvenkatapathy Reddy  v.  Kuppu
\nReddi and Others(2), Laxmansing Baliramsing v.\tLaxminarayan
\nDeosthan(3).   Rabindra\t Nath v. Harendra Kumar(4).   M.  H.
\nShivaji\t Rao  v.  Niranjanaiah and  Ant-.(,”).\tThese  cases
\nproceed\t upon  interpretation of the  expression  ‘less\t any
\namount\twhich  may since the date of  such  proclamation  of
\nsale, have been received” occurring in cl. (b) of r. 89.  It
\nis  unnecessary\t to venture an opinion whether\tthese  cases
\nwere correctly decided.\t It is sufficient to observe that an
\norder setting aside a court sale, in execution of a mortgage
\ndecree cannot be obtained, under 0. 21 r. 89 of the Code  of
\nCivil  Procedure by merely depositing 5 % of  the  purchase-
\nmoney  for payment to the auction purchaser  and  persuading
\nthe decree-holder to abandon the execution proceed–
\n(1) A.I.R.1935 Mad. 1050.\n<\/p>\n
(2) A.I.R.1940 Mad. 427: I.L.R. [1940] Mad. 699.
\n(3) I.L.R.[1947] Nag. 802.\n<\/p>\n
(4) A.I.R.1956 Cal. 462.\n<\/p>\n
(5) A.I.R.1962 Mys. 36.\n<\/p>\n
460<\/span><\/p>\n
Before\tparting with the case, it is necessary to deal\twith
\ncertain\t  questions   of  fundamental  importance   in\t the
\nadministration\tof justice which the judgment of  Raju,\t J.,
\nraises.\t  The  learned Judge observed-(I) that\teven  though
\nthere  is a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court  of
\nwhich  he  is a member or of a Division Bench of  that\tHigh
\nCourt, he is not bound to follow that precedent. because  by
\nfollowing  the precedent the Judge would act contrary to  s.
\n165 of the Indian Evidence Act, and, would also violate\t the
\noath of office taken by him when entering upon his duties as
\na Judge under the Constitution; and (2) that a judgment of a
\nFull Bench of the Court may be ignored by a Single Judge, if
\nthe  Full Bench judgment is given on a reference made  on  a
\nquestionof law arising in a matter before a single  .Judge
\nor a DivisionBench.    Such  a\tjudgment,   according\tto
\nRaju.J..  would\t “Dot  be  a judgment at all”  and  “has  no
\nexistence in law”.\n<\/p>\n
The  observations  made\t by the learned\t Judge\tsubvert\t the
\naccepted notions about the force or precedents in our system
\nof  judicial  administration.\tPrecedents  which  enunciate
\nrules  of  law\tform the  foundation  of  administration  of
\njustice under our -system.  It has been held time and  again
\nthat a single Judge of ,,a High Court is ordinarily bound to
\naccept\t as  correct  judgments\t of  Courts  of\t  coordinate
\njurisdiction and of Division Benches and of the Full Benches
\nof  his\t Court and of this Court.  The reason ,of  the\trule
\nwhich\tmakes  a  precedent  binding  lies  in\tthe   desire
\nto .secure uniformity and certainty in the law.
\nWe may refer to the observations made by Venkatarama  Aiyar.
\nJ..  in Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan Dubey and Others<\/a>(1) and\t the
\ncases  referred to therein.  If decisions of the same  or  a
\nsuperior Court are ignored, eventhough directly\t applicable.
\nby  a  Judge in deciding a case arising before him,  on\t the
\nview  that every .Judge is entitled to take such view as  he
\nchooses\t of  the  question  of law  arising  before  him  as
\nVenkatarama Aiyar, J., observed, the “law will be bereft  of
\nall  its  utility  if it should be thrown into\ta  state  of
\nuncertainty by reason of conflicting decisions”.
\nThe effect of a precedent of the Gujarat High Court fell  to
\nbe considered indirectly in this case.\tBefore Raju, J.,  it
\nwas  urged  -for  the  first time  in  the  course  of\tthis
\nlitigation  that  in  the absence .of the  sanction  of\t the
\nCharity\t Commissioner the Court sale was  invalid.   Counsel
\nfor  the auction purchaser contended that this question\t was
\nnot raised before the District Court and that Court  ,cannot
\nbe   said   to\thave  acted  illegally\tor   with   material
\nirregularity in not deciding the question.  Counsel for\t the
\nauction\t purchaser relied upon two decisions in\t support  of
\nthat proposition: Pinjare Karimbhai v. Shukla  Hariprasad(2)
\nand  Haridas  v. Rataney(2) He urged that under\t the  Bombay
\nReorganization Act, 1960, the
\n(1)  [1962] 2 S.C.R. 558 at pp. 567-569.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  3 Guj.  L.R. 529.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  23 Bom.  L.R. 802,
\n461<\/span>
\njurisdiction  of  the  Bombay High  Court  which  originally
\nextended over the territory now forming part of the State of
\nGujarat,  ceased  when a new High Court was set\t up  in\t the
\nState  of  Gujarat, but it was held by a Full Bench  of\t the
\nHigh  Court of Gujarat in State of Gujarat v.  Gordhandas(1)
\nthat the decision of the Bombay High Court will be  regarded
\nas  binding since the Gujarat High Court had  inherited\t the
\njurisdiction.\tpower  and  authority  in  respect  of\t the
\nterritory  of Gujarat.\tWhen pressed with  the\tobservations
\nmade in the two cases cited at the Bar, Raju.  J.. found  an
\neasy  way  out.\t He observed that the judgment of  the\tFull
\nBench  of the Gujarat High Court had “no existence in  law”.
\nfor  in the absence of a provision in’ the Constitution\t and
\nthe  Character Act of 1861, a Judge of a High Court  had  no
\nPower to refer a case to a Full Bench for determination of a
\nquestion of law arising before him. and a decision given  on
\na  reference “had no existence in law”.\t The  learned  Judge
\nalso  though that if a Judge or a Division Bench of a  Court
\nmakes  a reference on a question of law to a Full Bench\t for
\ndecision.  it Would in effect be assuming  the\tjurisdiction
\nwhich  is  vested by the Charter of the Court in  the  Chief
\njustice of the High Court. In so observing the learned Judge
\ncompletely misconceived the nature of a reference made by  a
\nJudge  or  a  Bench of Judges to a  larger  Bench.  when  it
\nappears to a Single Judge or a Division Bench that there are
\nconflicting  decisions\tof  the same  Court.  or  there\t are
\ndecisions  of other High Courts in India which are  strongly
\npersuasive  and\t take a view different from the\t view  which
\nprevails in his or their High Court.. or that a question  of
\nlaw  of importance arises in the trial of a case, the  Judge
\nor  the\t Bench\tpasses an order that the  papers  be  placed
\nbefore the Chief Justice of the High Court with a request to
\nform a special or Full Bench to hear and dispose of the case
\nor  the\t questions raised in the case.\tFor  making  such  a
\nrequest\t  to  the  Chief  Justice,  no\tauthority   of\t the
\nConstitution or of the Charter of the High Court is  needed.
\nand  by\t making such a request a Judge does  not  assume  to
\nhimself\t the  powers of the Chief Justice.  A  Single  Judge
\ndoes  not by himself refer the matter to the Full Bench:  he
\nonly  requests the Chief Justice to constitute a Full  Bench
\nfor hearing the matter.\t Such a Bench is constituted by\t the
\nChief Justice.\tThe Chief Justice of a Court may as a  rule,
\nout  of deference to the views expressed by  his  colleague,
\nrefer the case: that does not mean. however, that the source
\nof  the\t authority is in the order of reference.   Again  it
\nwould  be impossible to hold that a judgment delivered by  a
\nFull  Bench of a High Court after due consideration  of\t the
\npoints\tbefore it is liable to be regarded as irrelevant  by
\nJudges\tof  that  Court\t on  the  -round  of  some   alleged
\nirregularity in the constitution of the Full Bench
\nThe judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court was
\nbinding upon Raju J., If the learned Judge was of the view
\n(12) 3 Guj.  L.R. 269.\n<\/p>\n
462<\/span><\/p>\n
that  the  decision of Bhagwati, J.. in\t Pijare\t Karimbhai’s
\ncase(1) and of Nacleod, C. J.. in Haridas’s case(2) did\t not
\nJay  down the ‘correct law or rule of practice, it was\topen
\nto him to recommend ,to the Chief Justice that the  question
\nbe   considered\t by  a\tlarger\tBench.\t Judicial   decorum,
\npropriety and discipline required that lie should not ignore
\nit.   Our  system  of  administration  of  justice  aims  at
\ncertainty  in  the  law and that can be\t achieved  only\t if,
\nJudges\tdo  not\t ignore decisions by  Courts  of  coordinate
\nauthority or of superior authority.  Gajendragadkar, C.\t J..
\nobserved In Lala Shri Bhagwan & Anr. v.\t Shri Ram Chand\t and
\nAnr.<\/a> (3).\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is  hardly necessary\t to  emphasise\tthat
\n\t      consideration   of  judicial   propriety\t and
\n\t      decorum require that if a learned single Judge
\n\t      hearing a matter is inclined to take the\tview
\n\t      that the earlier decisions of the High  Court,
\n\t      whether  of  a Division Bench or of  a  single
\n\t      Judge,  need ,to be re-considered,  he  should
\n\t      not  embark  upon that enquiry  sitting  as  a
\n\t      single Judge, but should refer the matter\t ‘to
\n\t      a Division Bench. or, in a proper case,  place
\n\t      the  relevant papers before the Chief  Justice
\n\t      to enable him to -constitute a larger Bench to
\n\t      examine the question.  That is the proper\t and
\n\t      traditional way to deal with such matters\t and
\n\t      it   is  founded\ton  healthy  principles\t  of
\n\t      judicial decorum and propriety.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In considering whether a precedent of a Court of  coordinate
\n,authority  is binding reference to s. 165 of  the  Evidence
\nAct  is\t irrelevant.  Undoubtedly, every  judgment  must  be
\nbased  upon  facts  declarded  by the  Evidence\t Act  to  be
\nrelevant  and  duly proved. But when a Judge in\t deciding  a
\ncase  follows a precedent, he only regards himself bound  by
\nthe  principle underlying the judgMent and not by the  facts
\nof that case.\n<\/p>\n
It is true that every Judge of a High Court before he enters
\nupon  his office takes an oath of office that he  will\tbear
\ntrue  faith -and allegiance to the Constitution of India  as
\nby law established and that he will duly and faithfully\t and
\nto  the best of his ability, knowledge and judgment  perform
\nthe  duties of office without fear ,or favour, affection  or
\nillwill\t and  that he will uphold the Constitution  and\t the
\nlaws:  but  there  is nothing in the oath  of  office  which
\nwarrants  a  Judge  in ignoring the  rule  relating  to\t the
\nbinding\t nature,  of  the  precedents  which  is   uniformly
\nfollowed.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court
\nset  aside  and\t the  order passed  by\tthe  District  Court
\nrestored.\n<\/p>\n
In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs  in
\nthis -Court and in the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) 3 Guj.   L.R. 529.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 23 Bom.  L. R. 802.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [1965] 3 S.C.R. 218.\n<\/p>\n
463<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas … vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 372, 1968 SCR (1) 455 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: TRIBHUVANDAS PURSHOTTAMDAS THAKUR Vs. RESPONDENT: RATILAL MOTILAL PATEL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/09\/1967 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. SIKRI, S.M. SHELAT, J.M. CITATION: 1968 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-203958","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nTribhuvandas Purshottamdas ... vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas ... vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1967-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-16T02:41:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas … vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-16T02:41:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967\"},\"wordCount\":3295,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967\",\"name\":\"Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas ... vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-16T02:41:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas … vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas ... vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas ... vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-16T02:41:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas … vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967","datePublished":"1967-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-16T02:41:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967"},"wordCount":3295,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967","name":"Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas ... vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-16T02:41:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tribhuvandas-purshottamdas-vs-ratilal-motilal-patel-on-5-september-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas … vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203958","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=203958"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203958\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203958"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203958"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203958"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}