Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Nicholas V. Menezes vs Joseph M. Menezes & Ors on 25 March, 2009

Tanik Lal Mahto & Ors vs Kailash Pati Mahton & Ors on 5 July, 2010

In yet another decision relied upon by the learned counsel in Nicholas V. Menezes Vs. Joseph M. Menezes and others {(2009)4 Supreme Courts Cases 791), the appeal was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of High Court without calling for the records and proceedings and without appreciating the pleadings, evidence oral or documentary on record. Thus, it has been held by the Apex Court that the duty was cost upon the appellate court to consider the evidence on record and also questions of law. However, in the case in hand, learned counsel could not point out any infirmity in the findings recorded by appellate court. It could not be shown that deposition of any 11 witness who was competent to speak regarding the possession of the plaintiffs for the last 60 years was not considered. Learned counsel failed to show as to why the defendants' witnesses were not cross examined on the point of existence of the concerned passage or why one of the plaintiffs who was old enough and competent to say regarding their possession upon the suit land, was not examined as a witness? It is well settled that in case of concurrent findings of two lower courts, heavy burden lies on appellant seeking to disturb them in second appeal.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R Ranjan - Full Document

______________________________________________________________________ vs Smt. Rumalo Devi And Others on 7 September, 2016

19. It has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in rt Nicholas V. Menezes Vs. Joseph M. Menezes and others (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 791 that while deciding a first appeal, the High Court must consider the evidence on record, oral and documentary and also the questions of law raised before it and at the same time it is duty of the High Court to consider the reasons given by the trial Court against which the first appeal was filed and thereafter dispose of the same after passing a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A M Goel - Full Document

Mst.Sushila Devi & Anr. vs Balram & Ors on 13 August, 2013

8. It is equally well settled legal position that the first appellate Court while reversing the finding of the trial Court must meet the reasonings on which the finding of the trial Court is based. [See : Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179, Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 728 and Nicholas Vs. Menezes Vs. Joseph M. Menezes, (2009) 4 SCC 791]. The High Court in second appeal can interfere with findings of fact provided that findings are perverse. Re-appreciation of evidence is permissible in exceptional cases.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Gujarat vs Duda Meghna on 6 April, 1996

In light of the above principles laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, this appeal is required to be allowed on the above substantial question of law and the judgment of the first Appellate Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the first Appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law after giving full opportunity to the parties.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - C L Soni - Full Document
1   2 Next