Supreme Court Disposes Appellant's Civil Appeals in Terms of Same-Day Judgment in Vijay Singh etc. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal. The Court applied the ratio of the concurrently delivered judgment without separately analyzing statutory provisions, leading to disposal of Civil Appeal Nos. 4061-65 of 1991.

Case Note & Summary

The judgment under analysis is a brief order of the Supreme Court of India dated 10 October 1996. The case is captioned Mohammed Ganbi Sahib v. K. Balasubramania Nayar, with connected civil appeals numbered 4061-65 of 1991 titled D. Lakshmi Ammal v. N.K. Ramalingam Chettiar. The bench comprised Kuldip Singh, M.M. Punchhi, N.P. Singh, M.K. Mukherjee, and S. Saghir Ahmad. The judgment was authored by N.P. Singh. The entire text of the order consists of a single sentence: 'These appeals are disposed of in terms of the judgment of this court in the Case of Vijay Singh etc. etc. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal (Civil Appeal Nos. 5948-5950 if 1990) delivered today.' No other factual background, procedural history, submissions of the parties, statutory provisions, or legal reasoning are provided in the extracted text. The order does not specify the subject matter of the dispute, the relief sought, the grounds of appeal, or the issues of law involved. It merely records that the appeals are being disposed of by applying the judgment in Vijay Singh etc. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, which was delivered on the same day. Consequently, the outcome of these appeals is determined entirely by the ratio and directions contained in that same-day judgment. The extracted text does not include the text of the Vijay Singh judgment, nor any discussion of its facts or legal principles. Therefore, no independent ratio decidendi can be extracted from this order. The order reflects a common judicial practice where a bench disposes of connected or similar matters by reference to a lead judgment delivered concurrently. The lack of any elaboration means that the specific legal questions, statutory interpretations, and factual findings from the lead judgment are not reproduced here. As a result, the present judgment is purely procedural in nature and adds no substantive legal analysis beyond incorporating the earlier decision by reference. For the purposes of this extraction, all fields that require substantive legal content are marked as Not mentioned, because the source text does not provide such information. The case_details reflect only the names and numbers that appear in the caption and the single operative sentence. No advocates are named, no citation is given, and no prior decisions are mentioned other than the same-day judgment in Vijay Singh etc. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal. The procedural history is limited to the fact that the appeals were before a five-judge bench and were disposed of on the stated date. The decision is that the appeals are disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment, but the precise relief granted or denied cannot be determined from this text alone. Therefore, the judgment_favor is set to 'none' because the outcome is entirely dependent on an external judgment not provided.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Singh etc. etc. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal (Civil Appeal Nos. 5948-5950 of 1990) delivered today.