Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.45 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao & Anr. on 17 March, 1999
18. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the present
appeal itself is not at all maintainable, since, no appeal can be filed against
the findings and when the prayer of the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 in
the suit in O.S.No.13 of 1991 was for dismissal of the suit which was already
granted by the trial Court. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the appellants
herein and the defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the appeal.
Though the defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a common written statement, the
defendant No.1 did not enter into the witness box to prove the defence. The
legal position in this regard is no more res-integra and the same is well settled
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao and another 1 ,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
Banarsi And Ors vs Ram Phal on 17 February, 2003
19. As noticed supra, the very contention of the respondent Nos.7 to 9 in
the present appeal is that the appeal filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 is not
at all maintainable. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a common written
statement and the prayer of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the written
statement itself is to dismiss the suit with costs and the same was granted by
the trial Court on merits. The legal position in this regard is no more res-
integra and the same is well settled in Banarsi and Others Vs. Ram Phal2,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
Phoolchand And Anr vs Gopal Lal on 10 March, 1967
"8. Sections 96 and 100 of the CPC make provision for an appeal being
preferred from every original decree or from every decree passed in appeal
respectively; none of the provisions enumerates the person who can file an
appeal. However, it is settled by a long catena of decisions that to be entitled
to file an appeal the person must be one aggrieved by the decree. Unless a
person is prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree he is not entitled to
file an appeal (See Phoolchand and Anr. v. Gopal Lal, [1967] 3 SCR 153;
Smt. Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. M/s Golcha Properties (P) Ltd., [1970] 3
SCC 573; Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Ors., [1974] 2 SCC 393. No
appeal lies against a mere finding. It is significant to note that both Sections
96 and 100 of the CPC provide for an appeal against decree and not against
judgment.
Ganga Bai vs Vijay Kumar & Ors on 9 April, 1974
"8. Sections 96 and 100 of the CPC make provision for an appeal being
preferred from every original decree or from every decree passed in appeal
respectively; none of the provisions enumerates the person who can file an
appeal. However, it is settled by a long catena of decisions that to be entitled
to file an appeal the person must be one aggrieved by the decree. Unless a
person is prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree he is not entitled to
file an appeal (See Phoolchand and Anr. v. Gopal Lal, [1967] 3 SCR 153;
Smt. Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. M/s Golcha Properties (P) Ltd., [1970] 3
SCC 573; Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Ors., [1974] 2 SCC 393. No
appeal lies against a mere finding. It is significant to note that both Sections
96 and 100 of the CPC provide for an appeal against decree and not against
judgment.
Sahadu Gangaram Bhagade vs Spl. Deputy Collector, Ahmadnagar And ... on 30 March, 1970
AS_2467_2000
appellate court to form an opinion that in spite of the finding on ground (A)
being reversed to the benefit of defendant-appellant the decree could still be
sustained by reversing the finding on ground (B) though the plaintiff-
respondent has neither preferred an appeal of his own nor taken any cross
objection. A right to file cross objection is the exercise of right to appeal
though in a different form. It was observed in Sahadu Gangaram Bhagade
v. Special Deputy Collector. Ahmednagar and Anr., [1971] 1 SCR 146
that the right given to a respondent in an appeal to file cross objection is a
right given to the same extent as is a right of appeal to lay challenge to the
impugned decree if he can be said to be aggrieved thereby. Taking any cross
objection is the exercise of right of appeal and takes the place of cross-
appeal though the form differs. Thus it is clear that just as an appeal is
preferred by a person aggrieved by the decree so also a cross objection is
preferred by one who can be said to be aggrieved by the decree. A party
who has fully succeeded in the suit can and needs to neither prefer an
appeal nor take any cross objection though certain finding may be
against him. Appeal and cross-objection - both are filed against decree
and not against judgment and certainly not against any finding recorded
in a judgment. This was well-settled position of law under the
unamended CPC.
Mr S Sadiq Pasha S/O Late A.R.Abdul ... vs Smt Aktharunnissa W/O Azeezulla ... on 4 July, 2013
In a case of S.Sadiq Pasha Vs. Aktharunnissa & Others4, wherein
the High Court of Karnataka by referring the aforesaid case law held as
follows: