“Evolution Happens When You Recognize Your Mistake And Try To Change It”: Madras High Court Judge Criticises Own Judgment From 2018

The judge delivered a lecture on “A Judge Criticizing his own judgment in the Matter of Suit for Land”. The judge discussed how he had made a mistake while delivering judgment in a 2018 case, in the matter of Harsha Estates v Kalyana Chakravarty.

The judge remarked that he, as an individual was criticising the judgment delivered by him as a judge. He added that this attitude was very important since evolution happens when a person knows he has committed a mistake and is willing to correct that mistake. He added that everyone was bound to commit a mistake but it was also important to have a willingness to identify and reconsider the mistake.

“N Anand Venkatesh is criticizing the judgment of Justice N Anand Venkatesh. He is saying that the judgment may not be right and that the judgment needs reconsideration. This attitude is very important because at the end of the day, evolution happens not by merely learning but by unlearning also. Evolution happens when you know that you have committed a mistake and you're willing to correct that mistake. An institution is involved here. There is nothing personal in this. Everyone is bound to commit a mistake. And once you know you have committed a mistake, it's very important that you recognize the fact that you have committed a mistake and try to change it,” the judge said.

Justice Venkatesh added that one should not try to justify a mistake or try to keep it under the rags but should instead be willing to come forward and admit the mistake. “If you have committed a mistake and say that I have committed a mistake and it needs to be reconsidered, people will appreciate you rather than look down upon you,” he said.

Justice Venkatesh said that he had delivered the judgment shortly after assuming office and was carried away by the over-enthusiasm to write judgments. He added that if he had not let the over-enthusiasm come in the way and had deeply considered all the connected issues, he might have been able to deliver a better judgment.

He said that in the case, he had laid down a wrong proposition of law which led to a confusing proposition of law today. He added that the proposition as it existed today was that a suit for specific performance simpliciter was considered a suit for land, a suit for specific performance where possession was sought but the person in possession was pendente lite purchaser was considered a suit for land, and a suit for specific performance with an ancillary prayer of permanent injunction is sought was also considered a suit for land.

The judge clarified that a suit for specific performance was an action in personam and the decree was addressed to the defendant. He added that a leave under Clause 12 of the Letter Patent Act could be granted in cases where the property was situated outside the jurisdiction provided the defendant was within the original limits of the high court.

He further clarified that a suit for specific performance involving an agreement requiring the vendor to handover possession to the purchaser does not alter the nature of the suit from that of specific performance to that of title. He added that when an ancillary prayer for possession was made or an injunction was sought, it would not alter the character of the suit. He said that the primary test of the nature of the suit must be seen and not the relief.