Be Open & Correct Mistakes

This is the sixth post of the series 'Advice to Young Judges'. It recommends that they should remain open till the end and correct their mistake if it is any.

Satish Chandra J. became Chief Justice of the Allahabad High court and then retired as Chief justice of the Calcutta High Court.  

I have occasioned to argue before many judges but have not found a judge more intelligent than Satish Chandra J. One great quality about him was that he was always open till the end. This was evident in a bunch of eleven special appeals (SPLA 153 to 163 of 1972 Ajodhya Prasad Vs DDC) that I had argued before a bench presided over by him. The other judge was Yashoda Nandan J.

Ajodhya Prasad was a Zamindar and claimed the property to be his ‘Sir’ (सीर). The respondents claimed to be his sub-tenants. Litigation started much before the abolition of Zamindari. After its abolition, Ajodhya Prasad claimed to be its Bhumidhar; whereas, the respondents claimed to be Sirdars. 

After, abolition of Zamindari, Ajodhya Prasad filed the suits for ejectment of the respondents. In the suits, there was compromise; the respondents gave up their rights and in turn Ajodhya Prasad agreed to transfer the land on payment of Rs. 400 per Bigha. The suits were decided in terms of the compromise.

During consolidation operation, the Respondents alleged the compromise to be illegal and claimed Sirdari rights. However, Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) decided in favour of Ajodhya Prasad. But the single Judge allowed the writ petitions (WPs) of the Respondents and Ajodhya Prasad filed special appeals against that order. The two questions involved in the case were, 

• Firstly, whether the earlier compromise in the suit amounted to transfer of Sirdari property - thus, illegal;
• Secondly, whether the consolidation courts had jurisdiction to set aside compromise decree.  

I appeared for Ajodhya Prasad, the appellant. Sri SN Verma, Sr Advocate and Sri GN Verma, perhaps the best advocate for the land laws appeared for different respondents. 

I began my arguments, but the court did not agree with my submissions. Chandra J. started dictating judgement and appeals were dismissed. I got up and requested the court to deal with a point that I had argued. Chandra J. asked me if there were rulings on that point. On my affirmative answer, He asked the stenographer to score out the dictation and ordered the case to be unlisted. 

The next day, the case could not be taken up but the court reserved the judgement and requested us to file written submissions. Later, the judgement was delivered on 06.10.1978 and both the points were decided in my favour. The court held that neither the compromises amounted to transfer of Sirdari rights - thus not illegal, nor the consolidation courts have jurisdiction to cancel a decree.

This is a sign of a great judge: they are always open till the end and in case they are wrong, they do not hesitate to correct their mistakes.

#AdviceToYoungJudges #GoodJudge