Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, Justice K. Babu held that Article 227 of the Constitution of India,1950 cannot be used as an appellate or revisional power. Such power must be exercised sparingly and in cases of apparent error or grave injustice. 

• The Kerala High Court has held in the case of T.M.Leela and Another v. P.K.Vasu and Another (2025). 

What was the Background of the T.M.Leela and Another v. P.K.Vasu and Another Case? 

• In this case, the plaintiffs filed for specific performance of a contract against the defendants regarding immovable property. 
• The defendants in the original suit were: 
  • T.M. Leela (72 years), wife of Chandran. 
  • Sangeetha (47 years), daughter of Chandran, residing in Pune and represented by T.M. Leela through power of attorney. 
• The plaintiffs in the original suit were: 
  • P.K. Vasu, son of Karuppandi. 
  • Viswanathamannadiar (82 years), son of Chinnatharakan. 
• The matter was referred to Lok Adalat, where parties reached a settlement on 17^th July 2018. The settlement terms included: 
  • Defendants to execute property documents within one month of the award. 
  • Defendants to hand over prior documents, tax receipts, possession certificates, and encumbrance certificates within three weeks. 
  • Defendants to execute the document within seven days of delivering prior documents upon receiving balance sale consideration. 
  • If defendants defaulted, plaintiffs could deposit sale consideration in court and apply for document registration through court. 
• Subsequently: 
  • On 24^th September 2018, plaintiffs filed under Section 151 Cde of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking permission to deposit balance sale consideration. 
  • On 24^th September 2020, defendants filed under Section 28(1) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) to rescind the contract and set aside the decree. 
• Key disputed facts between parties: 
  • Plaintiffs claim defendants didn't hand over documents as agreed and only provided 'the schedule' on 20th September 2018. 
  • Defendants claim they handed over all documents to plaintiffs' document writer (Smt. Sindhu) on 18th August 2018. 
  • Defendants argue property value increased substantially after the decree. 
  • Defendants contend plaintiffs weren't ready with balance payment. 
• The Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Palakkad, passed a common order which was challenged in this Original Petition before the High Court of Kerala. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Kerela High Court made the following observations: 
  • On Documentation Requirements: 
    • Noted that prior documents were supposed to be given to plaintiffs within three weeks from 17th July 2018. 
    • Found that defendants admitted providing the thandaper number (necessary for registration) only on 20th September 2018. 
    • Observed that defendants failed to prove they delivered documents as agreed. 
  • On Evidence: 
    • Highlighted that defendants didn't produce any evidence to prove document delivery to either plaintiffs or Smt. Sindhu. 
    • Applied Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), presuming that unproduced evidence would have been unfavorable to defendants. 
    • Noted the significance of defendants giving up Smt. Sindhu as a witness, who could have provided best evidence. 
  • On Timeline of Events: 
    • Observed that thandaper number was issued only on 30th August 2018. 
    • Noted plaintiffs filed for deposit permission on 24th September 2018 (38 days after the time limit). 
    • Found this delay justified due to defendants' prior delays in document delivery. 
  • On Contract Performance: 
    • Determined defendants failed to perform their first obligation (document delivery). 
    • Found plaintiffs weren't required to seek time extension since defendants hadn't fulfilled their primary obligations. 
    • Concluded defendants failed to establish valid grounds for contract rescission. 
  • On Jurisdiction: 
    • Clarified that Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) powers are limited to cases of:  
      • Grave dereliction of duty 
      • Flagrant violation of law 
      • Cases requiring intervention to prevent grave injustice 
    • Emphasizing these powers cannot be used as appellate or revisional authority. 
• The Kerela High Court ultimately upheld the Trial Court's decision, finding no reason to interfere with the common order, as the defendants failed to prove they fulfilled their obligations under the contract and didn't establish grounds for rescission. 

What is Article 227 of the COI? 

• This Article is enshrined under Part V of the Constitution which deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. 
• It states that- 
  • Clause (1) states that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. 
  • Clause (2) states that without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may— 
    • Call for returns from such courts. 
    • Make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts. 
    • Prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. 
  • Clause (3) states that the High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein. 
  • Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed, or tables settled under clause (2), or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. 
  • Clause (4) states that nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court power of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.