Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (1.00 seconds)Gurdev Kaur & Ors vs Kaki & Ors on 18 April, 2006
In 2007 (1) SCC 546 [Gurudev Kaur and Others v. Kaki and Others] it is observed that now the High Courts can interfere only where substantial questions of law are involved and have been formulated in the memorandum of appeal. Moreover, High Court must first formulate the questions of law and only thereafter it can proceed to decide them and that the amendment introduced in 1976 clearly indicates that legislature never intended the second appeal to become a third trial on facts. It is further held that where, by the Will, the testator bequeathed the entire estate to only one of several heirs and the courts below recorded a concurrent finding that the Will was a genuine and valid document and the High Court erred in setting aside the same on the ground that in normal circumstances a prudent man would have bequeathed a property in favour of his legal heirs.
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Guran Ditta vs T. Ram Ditta on 24 April, 1928
In Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta (AIR 1928 PC 172) the phrase "substantial question of law" as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 100 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act 1973) came up for consideration and Their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case.
Rimmalapudi Subba Rao vs Noony Veeraju And Ors. on 22 March, 1951
The following is the relevant portion of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao's case:
Narayanan Rajendran And Anr vs Lekshmy Sarojini And Ors on 12 February, 2009
15(v). Mr.K.M. Vijayan, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would garner support from a decision of the Supreme Court in 2009 (5) SCC 264 [Narayanan Rajendran and another v. Lekshmy Sarojini and Others] wherein it is held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 C.P.C is strictly involving substantial questions of law and the High Court would not be justified in dealing with any second appeal without first formulating substantial question of law and the High Court should keep in mind the legal position before interfering in a case of concurrent findings of facts and will refrain from interfering with the concurrent findings of fact without formulating substantial question of law.
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar An Dors on 16 April, 1999
16.(vi) In 1999 (3) SCC 722 [Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others] it is held that concurrent findings of fact, however erroneous, cannot be disturbed under the section.
Section 100 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi vs Rajat Vidyarthi on 2 December, 2008
The said judgment has been referred by the Supreme Court in Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi's case (supra).