Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Litigants come to Courts for decisions and not for obtaining doubtful opinions. The Court, therefore, should not be a prisoner of indecision. Clarity and promptness in decision making are the need of the hour. That would go a long way to reduce the docket explosion. [620G] Kunji Amma Narayani Amma v. Dhathri Antherjanan, [1954] K.L.T. 155, referred to.

& CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2114 (N) of 1972.

From the Judgment and decree dated 16.7.1971 of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit Nos. 183, 195 and 249 of 1966.

Before we consider the contentions urged before us, it will be better to clear the mental cobweb as to the law applicable to Malayala Brahmins. The trial Court said that they are governed by Marumakkathayam Law. The High Court did not say anything specific. It appears to have doubted the applicability of the principles of Hindu Law to them. A question of this nature should not have been kept in doubt. As a matter of fact no point that comes for consideration should be kept in doubt by Courts. The litigants come to Courts for decisions and not for obtaining doubtful opin- ions. The Court, therefore, should not be a prisoner of indecision. The clarity and promptness in decision making are the need of the hour. That would go a long way to reduce the docket explosion.