Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.17 seconds)
Jawed Rahman & Anr vs Smti Rumena Huda Hazarika & Ors on 4 June, 2013 cites

Sumitra Devi vs Bhikan Choudhary on 28 January, 1985

" 15. A perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court shows that it has extensively dealt with the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties for deciding the issues on which the parties went on trial. ................. The Appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the Trial Court. First RSA No. 192/2000 Page 10 of 14 Appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is there in open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the Appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record and findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and press by the parties for decision of the Appellate Court. The task of an Appellate Court affirming the findings of the Trial Court is an easier one. The Appellate Court agreeing with the view of the Trial Court need not restate the affect of the evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the Trial Court; expression of general agreement with reasons given by the Court, decision of which is under appeal, would ordinarily suffice. (seeGirijanandini Devi V. BijendraNarain Choudhary8). We would, however, like to sound a note of causion. Expression of general agreement with the findings recorded in the judgment under appeal should not be a device or camouflage adopted by the Appellate Court for shirking the duty cast on it. While writing a judgment of reversal the Appellate Court must remain conscious of two principles. Firstly, the findings of facts based on conflicting evidence arrived at by Trial Court must weigh with the Appellate Court, more so when the findings are based on the oral evidence recorded by the same Presiding Judge who author the Judgment. This does not certainly mean that when an appeal lies on facts, the Appellate Courts is not competent to reverse a finding of fact arrived at by the Trial Judge. As a matter of law if the appraisal of the evidence by the trial Court suffers from a material irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence or RSA No. 192/2000 Page 11 of 14 on conjectures and surmises, the appellate Court is entitled to interfere finding of fact.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 28 - R B Misra - Full Document

Madhusudan Das vs Smt. Narayanibai (Deceased) By Lrs. And ... on 25 November, 1982

(See Madusudan Das v. Narayanibai 9). The rule is - and is nothing more than a rule of practice --- that when there is conflict of oral evidence of the parties on any matter in issue and the decision hinges upon the credibility of witnesses , then unless there is some special features about the evidence of a particular witness which has escaped the trial Judge's notice or there is sufficient balance of improbability to displace his opinion as to where the credibility lie, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of the trial Judge on a question of fact.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 85 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1