# BADDULA LAKSHMAIAH AND ORS v. SRI ANJANEY A SWAMI TEMPLE AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1996] 2 S.C.R. 906
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-02-20
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/baddula-lakshmaiah-and-ors-v-sri-anjaney-a-swami-temple-and-ors-13908
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A
BADDULA LAKSHMAIAH AND ORS.
v.
SRI ANJANEY A SWAMI TEMPLE AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 20, 1996
B
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND S.C. SEN, 11.]
Letters Patent Appeal :
Grant of land made on Archaka--Whether meant to be confe1red on
C him personally or on the temple through the Archaka--Trial Court and Single
Judge of High Court held that the grant was personal to the Archaka and so
the alienations made by him were in
orde~Letters Patent AppealI11te1f ere11ce by the Bench and setting aside the orders of the Courts
below-Held, a Letters Patent Appeal is nonnally an intra-cowt appeal-17ie
D Letters Patent Bench sitting as Cowt of Co11'ection--C01rects its own orders
in exercise of the same jwisdiction as was vested in the Single Judge-In such
appellate jwisdiction the High Cowt exercises the powers of a Cowt of
error.

## Text

A
BADDULA LAKSHMAIAH AND ORS.
v.
SRI ANJANEY A SWAMI TEMPLE AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 20, 1996
B
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND S.C. SEN, 11.]
Letters Patent Appeal :
Grant of land made on Archaka--Whether meant to be confe1red on
C him personally or on the temple through the Archaka--Trial Court and Single
Judge of High Court held that the grant was personal to the Archaka and so
the alienations made by him were in
orde~Letters Patent AppealI11te1f ere11ce by the Bench and setting aside the orders of the Courts
below-Held, a Letters Patent Appeal is nonnally an intra-cowt appeal-17ie
D Letters Patent Bench sitting as Cowt of Co11'ection--C01rects its own orders
in exercise of the same jwisdiction as was vested in the Single Judge-In such
appellate jwisdiction the High Cowt exercises the powers of a Cowt of
error.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4090 of
E 1984.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.82 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in L.P.A. No .. 230 of 1977.
K. Ram Kumar for the Appellants.
B. Kanta Rao for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Title to 29 act-es of agricultural land, its possession and recovery of
G mesne profits, was sought by the respondent-temple from the appellants.
The trial court dismissed the suit. A learned Single Judge of the High
Court, in appeal, in re-appraising the evidence adduced, prominently paid
attention to two documents containing certain recitals which partly supported the case of the plaintiff-temple respondent and partly that of the
H defendants -appellants. Reading them together, the learned Single Judge
906
--'--
.-
1
--
BADDULALAKSHMAIAHv. ANJAYEYASWAMITEMPLE
907
aimed to reconcile the entries instead of holding them as inconsistent. He A
made an attempt to gather the predominant intention of the concerned
authorities while preparing those documents, by looking at both of them
integrally. The dispute plainly was whether the grant made in favour of the
Archaka was meant to be conferred on him personally or on the temple
through the Archaka. The trial court, as also the learned Single Judge held B
that the grant was personal to the Archaka and thus the alienations made
by him thereafter were in order. The result thereof was that the decision
of the trial court dismissing the suit was upheld by the learned Single Judge.
Further bout fought by the temple-respondent before the Letters Patent
Bench of the High Court bore result inasmuch as the Bench, on fresh
reconciliation of those two documents, bearing in mind the other surroundC
ing circumstances, came to the view that the grant was intended to be in
favour of the temple and not to the Archaka personally.
Mr. Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, inter alia' contends that the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court could not have upset · D
a finding of fact recorded by a learned Single Judge on fresh reconciliation
of the two documents, arriving at different results then those arrived at
earlier by the two courts afore-mentioned. Though the argument sounds
attractive, it does not bear scrutiny. Against the orders of the trial court,
first appeal lay before the High Court, both on facts as well as law. It is E
the internal working of the High Court which splits it into different
'Benches' and yet the court remains one. A Letters Patent Appeal, as
permitted under the Letters Patent, is normally an intra-court appeal
whereunder the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction,
corrects its own orders in exercise for the same jurisdiction as was vested F
in the Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of a subordinate
Court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises the powers
of a Court of Error. So understood, the appellate power under the Letters
Patent is quite distinct, in contrast to what is ordinarily understood in
procedural language. That apart the construction of the afore-mentioned
two documents involved, in the very nature of their import, a mixed G
question of law and fact, well within the powers of the Letters Patent Bench
to decide. The Bench was not powerless in that regard.
We are therefore, of the view that the Letters Patent Bench committed no error in re-doing the exercise to reconcile those two questioned H
908
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 2 S.C.R.
A
documents so as to get to the result in favour of the temple-respondent.
B
Except for the point afore dealt with, no other point has been raised by
learned counsel.
For the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
No costs.
G.N.
Appeal dismissed.
-
-'