BADDULA LAKSHMAIAH AND ORS.versusSRI ANJANEYA SWAMI TEMPLE AND ORS.

A                    BADDULA LAKSHMAIAH AND ORS.
                                  v.
                  SRI ANJANEYA 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 Appeal-
    I11te1fere11ce 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.

         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.
F
            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 sup-
    ported the case of the plaintiff-temple respondent and partly that of the
H   defendants -appellants. Reading them together, the learned Single Judge
                                         906
            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 surround- C
 1
     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' con-
     tends 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
     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
                                                                                   F


     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 com-
     mitted 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.
    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.
B
    G.N.                                                    Appeal dismissed.
                                                                                 -
                                                                                 -
                                                                                 '