Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (2.43 seconds)
Documents citing Thiagarajan & Ors vs Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil & Ors on 16 March, 2004

Sri Papanna vs Sri P N Paramesha on 12 October, 2022

30. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Thiagarajan and Others v. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and Others5, where the scope and ambit of Section 100 was discussed at length and it is held that existence of substantial question of law is sine-qua-non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended provisions of Section 100 of CPC. It is re-iterated that where findings of fact by the First Appellate Court are based on evidence, the High Court in second appeal cannot substitute its own findings on re- appreciation of evidence, merely on the ground that another view was possible.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri K V Nagesh Gowda vs Sri Munivenkatappa K.M on 31 October, 2022

50. When the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on appreciation and re-appreciation of the materials, recorded a concurrent finding of facts, the scope under Section 100 of CPC to interfere with such findings would be very limited. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Thiagarajan and Others v. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and Others6, wherein, the scope and ambit of Section 100 was discussed at length and it is held that existence of 6 (2004) 5 SCC 762 38 substantial question of law is sine-qua-non for exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended provisions of Section 100 of CPC. It is categorically held that it is the obligation on the Courts of law to further clear intendment of the legislature and not frustrating by excluding the same. It is re-iterated that where findings of fact by the First Appellate Court are based on evidence, the High Court in second appeal cannot substitute its own findings on re-appreciation of evidence merely on the ground that another view was possible.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Malagouda Jinagouda Patil vs Shantappa Yeshwant Mirji And Ors. on 4 July, 2005

9. Mr. C.M. Desai would further rely on the following judgments with regard to the power of the High Court under Section 100 of the Code namely, Manicka Popsali (deceased) by L.Rs and Ors. v. Anjalai Ammal and Anr., ; Bashir Ahmed and Ors. v. Abdul Rahman (dead) by L.Rs and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 3284; Thiagarajan and Ors. v. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and Ors., and O.T.M.O.M. Meyyappa Chettiar v. O.T.M.S.M. Kasi Viswanathari Chettiar and Anr., 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 1 : 1993 AIR SCW 2894 There is 110 dispute on the propositions spelt out in the above decisions.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - A Byrareddy - Full Document

Smt Saraswathi D/O Dhulappa W/O ... vs Smt Siddamma W/O Late Sangramappa Gumma ... on 1 December, 2023

43. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Thiagarajan and Others v. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and Others4, where the scope and ambit of Section 100 was discussed at length and it is held that existence of substantial question of law is sine-qua-non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended provisions of Section 100 of CPC. It is re-iterated that where findings on facts by the First Appellate Court are based on evidence, the High Court in second appeal cannot substitute its own findings on re-appreciation of evidence, merely on the ground that another view was possible.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Siddaramaiah vs Smt Honnamma on 13 October, 2022

16. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Thiagarajan and Others v. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and Others2, where the scope and ambit of Section 100 was discussed at length and it is held that existence of substantial question of law is sine-qua-non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended provisions of Section 100 of CPC. It is re-iterated that where findings of fact 2 (2004) 5 SCC 762
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri K N Basappa Dead By His Lr'S vs B Nagendrappa on 19 October, 2022

24. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Thiagarajan and Others v. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and Others1, where the scope and ambit of Section 100 was discussed at length and it is 1 (2004) 5 SCC 762 18 held that existence of substantial question of law is sine-qua- non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended provisions of Section 100 of CPC. It is re-iterated that where findings of fact by the First Appellate Court are based on evidence, the High Court in second appeal cannot substitute its own findings on re-appreciation of evidence, merely on the ground that another view was possible.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Manchaiah S/O Hymagiraiah vs Sri Hyamaiah S/O Hymagiraiah on 31 October, 2022

28. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Thiagarajan and Others v. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and Others3, where the scope and ambit of Section 100 was discussed at length and it is held that existence of substantial question of law is sine-qua- non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended provisions of Section 100 of CPC. It is reiterated that where findings of fact by the First Appellate Court are based on evidence, the High Court in second appeal cannot substitute its own findings on re-appreciation of evidence, merely on the ground that another view was possible.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narayana Gowda vs K V Munivenkate Gowda on 24 November, 2022

31. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Thiagarajan and Others v. Sri 23 Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and Others4, where the scope and ambit of Section 100 was discussed at length and it is held that existence of substantial question of law is sine-qua- non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended provisions of Section 100 of CPC. It is re-iterated that where findings of fact by the First Appellate Court are based on evidence, the High Court in second appeal cannot substitute its own findings on re-appreciation of evidence, merely on the ground that another view was possible.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yamanavva And Anr. vs Chandrawwa on 10 March, 2005

It is well settled in view of the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent that this court gets jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent finding on the question of fact only when substantial question of law arises for determination and concurrent finding is not interfere in exercise of power of this court under section 100 CPC., in second appeal unless the finding is perverse and arbitrary and contrary to material on record as held in MSV RAJA v. SEENI THEVAR, and in THIAGARAJAN AND ORS. v. SRI VENUGOPALASWAMYB. KOIL, .
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - V G Sabhahit - Full Document
1