Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.80 seconds)Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar An Dors on 16 April, 1999
Therefore, the ratio of the case of Santosh Hazari, (supra), Iswar Dass Jain, (supra) and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam, (supra), supports the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. It is the duty of the last Court of facts i.e. appellate Court below to deal with all the issues and evidence laid by the authorities before recording its finding under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and here in this case the lower appellate Court has discharged its obligation properly which reflects it conscious application of mind and the finding so recorded by him is well supported by reasons on all the issues arising along with contention put forth and pressed by the parties before him and thus it cannot be said that the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court below is based on without any legal evidence on the record or misreading of the evidence or suffers from any legal infirmity which maternally prejudices the case of one of the parties or the finding is perverse. I, therefore, see no reason to disagree with the finding arrived at by the learned appellate Court below and it is also not open to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute, its own conclusion. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment.
Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001
Therefore, the ratio of the case of Santosh Hazari, (supra), Iswar Dass Jain, (supra) and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam, (supra), supports the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. It is the duty of the last Court of facts i.e. appellate Court below to deal with all the issues and evidence laid by the authorities before recording its finding under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and here in this case the lower appellate Court has discharged its obligation properly which reflects it conscious application of mind and the finding so recorded by him is well supported by reasons on all the issues arising along with contention put forth and pressed by the parties before him and thus it cannot be said that the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court below is based on without any legal evidence on the record or misreading of the evidence or suffers from any legal infirmity which maternally prejudices the case of one of the parties or the finding is perverse. I, therefore, see no reason to disagree with the finding arrived at by the learned appellate Court below and it is also not open to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute, its own conclusion. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment.
Achal Reddi vs Ramakrishna Reddiar And Ors on 17 November, 1989
Lastly it has been contended that Butan Mian, the ancestors of the respondents, is the settlee in respect of the half of the land of dar-raiyati khata No. 4 by the Khas Mahal authorities and by virtue of that settlement Butan Mian had acquired valid right, title and interest therein and in such a situation the appellant has no title in respect thereof and he has also failed to prove his title and therefore, the respondents cannot be said to be in permissive possession over the suit land and, thus, the ratio of the case of Achal Reddi (supra) has no application to the facts of this case and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment requiring an interference therein.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 144 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs Sohan Lal (Dead)By Lrs on 29 November, 1999
Therefore, the ratio of the case of Santosh Hazari, (supra), Iswar Dass Jain, (supra) and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam, (supra), supports the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. It is the duty of the last Court of facts i.e. appellate Court below to deal with all the issues and evidence laid by the authorities before recording its finding under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and here in this case the lower appellate Court has discharged its obligation properly which reflects it conscious application of mind and the finding so recorded by him is well supported by reasons on all the issues arising along with contention put forth and pressed by the parties before him and thus it cannot be said that the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court below is based on without any legal evidence on the record or misreading of the evidence or suffers from any legal infirmity which maternally prejudices the case of one of the parties or the finding is perverse. I, therefore, see no reason to disagree with the finding arrived at by the learned appellate Court below and it is also not open to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute, its own conclusion. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment.
1