Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.45 seconds)
Sri K V Nagesh Gowda vs Sri Munivenkatappa K.M on 31 October, 2022 cites

Thiagarajan & Ors vs Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil & Ors on 16 March, 2004

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 121 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Madhavan Pillai Prabhakaran Nair vs Radhamma Pillai Prasannakumary on 11 August, 2017

53. The Hon'ble Apex Court referred to its earlier decision in Madhavan Nair Vs Bhaskar Pillai12, to observe that the High Courts are not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact. It is held that it is well settled that even if the First Appellate Court commits an error in recording a finding of fact, that itself will not be a ground that the High Court to upset the same. Referring to the Fifty- fourth report of the Law Commission of India submitted in 1973, the legislative background which led to the amendment of Section 100 CPC was highlighted that 'the question could perhaps be asked, why the litigant who wishes to have justice from the highest court of the State should be denied the opportunity to do so, atleast where there is a flaw in the conclusion of facts reached by the Trial Court or by the Court 12 (2005) 10 SCC 553 41 of first appeal. The answer is obvious but even litigants have to be protected against too persistent a pursuit of their goal of perfectly satisfactory justice. An unqualified right of first appeal may be necessary for satisfaction of the defeated litigant; but a wide right of second appeal is more in the nature of a luxury'. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court once again crystallized the legislative intention by referring to its several other decisions to caution the High Courts to refrain from interfering with the concurrent findings of fact without there being a substantial question of law.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Smt. Gulwant Kaur & Another vs Mohinder Singh & Ors on 20 July, 1987

In Gulwant Kaur (supra), the wife having strained relationship with her husband was living separately and the husband entrusted her a land to fetch income towards her maintenance. Subsequently, the husband had sold the said land in spite of her protest. In a suit that was instituted by the purchaser, the High Court held that the wife was allowed to receive the proceeds of the land in order to meet her day to day expenses and that the land was never intended to be given to her. Disagreeing with this conclusion, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the land in question was given to the wife in lieu of her maintenance, that is sufficient to attract Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 58 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Bai Vajia (Dead) By L. Rs vs Thakorbhai Chelabhai And Ors on 20 February, 1979

Similar was the case in Bai Vajia (supra), wherein, it is held that since the land was acquired by Hindu female in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, it gets enlarged in view of Section 14(1) 0of the Act. But the facts in the present case are entirely different. The recitals found in Ex.D3 makes it clear that the executants proposed to enjoy the property during their life time and after their death, the property is to be 4 (1979) 3 SCC 300 31 devolved to defendant Nos.7 and 8 as mentioned therein. The recital in this document suggest that Muniyamma had no pre-existing right over item Nos.1 and 3 of the property and it was not held by her in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance. Under such circumstances, it cannot be contended that her right if any over the property would be enlarged in view of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 64 - A D Koshal - Full Document
1   2 Next