The Supreme Court has ruled that a plaintiff can maintain a composite appeal against a common judgment delivered in multiple suits filed by the same plaintiff, holding that the absence of separate memoranda of appeal is not, by itself, enough to invalidate the challenge.
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar overturned a Karnataka High Court ruling that had rejected the maintainability of a composite appeal filed against a common judgment concerning two suits.
The Court held that the first appellate court was justified in entertaining the composite appeal and deciding it on merits.
The dispute originated from two suits filed by the predecessor of the appellants. One sought a declaration that a registered sale deed executed by one defendant in favour of another was invalid. The second sought a perpetual injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s alleged joint possession.
The two matters were clubbed and tried together. After evidence was recorded, the trial court dismissed both suits through a common judgment dated December 7, 1990.
Instead of filing two separate appeals, the plaintiff challenged the common judgment through a single composite appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Importantly, the appellant attached certified copies of both decrees and paid the court fee applicable to two separate appeals.
The First Appellate Court accepted the appeal and proceeded to decide the matter on merits.
The Karnataka High Court, however, subsequently interfered with that decision on the ground that separate appeals should have been filed against the two decrees.
The Supreme Court found that approach legally unsustainable.
Justice Chandurkar, writing the judgment, held that where two suits instituted by the same plaintiff are decided through a common judgment, a composite appeal challenging that common judgment can be entertained. The Court further observed that even if separate memoranda were considered necessary, the omission was a curable procedural defect, not one warranting the appellate decision being thrown out without examination of the merits.
The Court also pointed out that the plaintiff had already submitted both decrees along with the composite appeal and had paid the requisite court fees.
In the Supreme Court’s view, the High Court should not have allowed a procedural issue to defeat adjudication of the dispute on its merits. If the High Court believed separate appeals were required, the appropriate course would have been to give the plaintiff an opportunity to rectify the defect.
The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment. The second appeals filed by the respondents have been restored before the High Court for fresh consideration on their merits.
