Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.11 seconds)
Documents citing Mahaboob vs Maktumsab on 10 March, 2008

Madan Lal Sahani vs Seeni on 21 July, 2010

16. It is settled law by this Court, that, it is impermissible for the High Court to interfere on a question of fact particularly when both the courts below rejected Ext. D-11 as not admissible since the same was not properly proved by the defendant. The conclusion arrived at by the High Court is not acceptable and the decision arrived at by the trial court and the first appellate court declaring the plaintiff as the owner in possession of 7.10 acres is acceptable. In the wake of respective contentions and the law as laid down by the Honble Apex Court, to notice precisely the factual background for appreciating the matter in its right perspective has become imperative:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madan Lal Sahani vs Seeni on 21 July, 2010

16. It is settled law by this Court, that, it is impermissible for the High Court to interfere on a question of fact particularly when both the courts below rejected Ext. D-11 as not admissible since the same was not properly proved by the defendant. The conclusion arrived at by the High Court is not acceptable and the decision arrived at by the trial court and the first appellate court declaring the plaintiff as the owner in possession of 7.10 acres is acceptable. In the wake of respective contentions and the law as laid down by the Honble Apex Court, to notice precisely the factual background for appreciating the matter in its right perspective has become imperative:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pran Nath & Anr vs Seeni on 21 July, 2010

16. It is settled law by this Court, that, it is impermissible for the High Court to interfere on a question of fact particularly when both the courts below rejected Ext. D-11 as not admissible since the same was not properly proved by the defendant. The conclusion arrived at by the High Court is not acceptable and the decision arrived at by the trial court and the first appellate court declaring the plaintiff as the owner in possession of 7.10 acres is acceptable. In the wake of respective contentions and the law as laid down by the Honble Apex Court, to notice precisely the factual background for appreciating the matter in its right perspective has become imperative:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pran Nath & Anr vs Seeni on 21 July, 2010

16. It is settled law by this Court, that, it is impermissible for the High Court to interfere on a question of fact particularly when both the courts below rejected Ext. D-11 as not admissible since the same was not properly proved by the defendant. The conclusion arrived at by the High Court is not acceptable and the decision arrived at by the trial court and the first appellate court declaring the plaintiff as the owner in possession of 7.10 acres is acceptable. In the wake of respective contentions and the law as laid down by the Honble Apex Court, to notice precisely the factual background for appreciating the matter in its right perspective has become imperative:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Subir Mondal And Another vs Adhir Mondal And Others on 19 June, 2012

In this connection Mr. Dasgupta has referred case laws reported in (2001) 3 SCC page 179 (Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari), (2008) 11 SCC page 586 (Mahaboob vs. Maktumsab), (2008) 12 SCC page 181 (Mahant Dooj Dass vs. Udasin Panchayati Bara Akhara and another) (2010) 13 SCC page 216 (Muncipal Committee vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others) to impress upon this Court that as both the Courts below came to concurrent findings of fact based on evidence then there is no scope of interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure particularly when tallying the patta land with the land of 'A' schedule property is a question of fact. According to him, practically no substantial question of law is really involved in this appeal and at this stage there is no scope of passing any order of remand for relayment of land of patta of 1916 with reference to 'A' schedule property.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - T K Gupta - Full Document
1