Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.64 seconds)
Documents citing Gaddam Paramasivudu vs Mulakala Subbanna And Ors. on 25 October, 1918

Krishnan Nair vs Kambi on 26 November, 1936

4. This principle was accepted and applied in Gaddam Paramasivudu v. Mulakala Subbanna AIR 1919 Mad 17 in second appeal and recently by Varadachariar, J. in Rangaohariar v. Rangaswami Iyengar AIR 1936 Mad 190 in a civil revision petition. The question is, will the defendant, not being a party to the said judgments, be bound by them? The view of Dr. Bigelow is that a lessee would be bound by a judgment against his lessor in the absence of any fraud or collusion on his part. He explains the principle thus:
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Chapala Chinnabbayi And Ors. vs Naralasetti Anusuyama And Ors. on 7 December, 2005

In Gaddam Paramasivudu's case (12 supra), the Division Bench of the Madras High Court declined to lay down a general principle on the question of admissibility of additional evidence in second appeal. However, on the facts of that case admitted the additional evidence in the second appeal. The learned Judges did not consider the scope of the power of the High Court under Sections 100 and 103 C.P.C. as they stood then. The Division Bench by keeping in view the amended provisions of Sections 100 and 103 C.P.C. expressed the view that the High Court in hearing the second appeal cannot re-appraise the evidence and determine the questions of fact.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

N.Natarajan vs The Executive Officer on 30 March, 2015

After the amendment of Section 100 of CPC in the year 1976, these judgements were later on considered by a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chapala Chinnabbayi and others v. Naralasetti Anusuyam [AIR 2006 AP 142 ] wherein agreeing with the Division Bench of this Court in Goddam Paramasivudu's case the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh held thus If the High Court considers necessary and appropriate to receive further evidence at the stage of second appeal and in the interest of justice and both parties, it may permit the additional evidence to be adduced by invoking Order 42 C.P.C. and by taking the aid of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Parbanna (Deceased By L.R'S.) And Ors. vs Veershetty on 1 November, 2002

AIR 1932 Cal 482 and in Manthena Ramanamma v. SPL. Tahsildar, AIR 1976 Andh Pra 81 and also, in Paramasivudu v. Subbanna, AIR 1919 Mad 17. The learned counsel for the appellants draws my attention to Order XLI, Rule 1, Order XLI. Rule 3-A. Order 42. Rule l and also Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, The learned counsel also contends that in the case of presentation of an appeal, whether it is a second appeal or a first appeal, when presented with an application for condonation of delay, the question of following the procedure laid down under the amended provision of Order XLI, Rule 9, C.P.C. does not arise. The learned counsel for the appellants also draws my attention to the characteristics of a regular first appeal and also the peculiar features of a second appeal. The learned counsel further contends that from a close reading of the relevant provisions of C.P.C. it is clear that under the main provision of Section 100. C.P.C. the right and the power of High Court to entertain a second appeal is no way affected by the Introduction of Order XLI. Rule 9, C.P.C. by Act 46 of 1999.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Anisetti Bhagyavathi vs Andaluri Satyanarayana And Others on 3 February, 1992

It may he noted here that the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Pramasivudu's case (supra) declined to lay down a general principle on the question of admissibility of additional evidence in second appeal; however on the facts of that case admitted the additional evidence in the second appeal. The learned Judges did not consider the scope of the power of the High Court under Ss. 100 and 103, C.P.C. as they stood then. Having regard to the amended provisions of Ss. 100 and 103, I.P.C. we are clear in our view that the High Court in hearing second appeal cannot re-appraise the evidence and determine the question of fact.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - S S Quadri - Full Document
1