Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.77 seconds)Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001
4. the appellate court has jurisdiction
to reverse or affirm the findings of the
trial court. The first appeal is a
valuable right of the parties and unless
restricted by law, the whole case is
therein 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 findings supported by reasons,
on all the issues arising along with the
contentions put forth, and pressed by the
parties for decision of the appellate
court. Sitting as a court of first
appeal, it was the duty of the High Court
to deal with all the issues and the
evidence led by the parties before
recording its findings. The first appeal
is a valuable right and the parties have
a right to be heard both on questions of
law and on facts and the judgment in the
first appeal must address itself to all
the issues of law and fact and decide it
by giving reasons in support of the
findings. (Vide Santosh Hazari v.
Purushottam Tiwari – (2001) 3 SCC 179 at
p.188 para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram –
(2001) 4 SCC 756 at p.758, para 5.”
Anil Kak vs Kumari Sharada Raje & Ors on 24 April, 2008
“20. This Court in Anil Kak v. Sharada
Raje opined that the court is required
to adopt a rational approach and is
furthermore required to satisfy its
conscience as existence of suspicious
circumstances plays an important role,
holding:
Section 67 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Madhukar And Ors vs Sangram And Ors on 20 April, 2001
4. the appellate court has jurisdiction
to reverse or affirm the findings of the
trial court. The first appeal is a
valuable right of the parties and unless
restricted by law, the whole case is
therein 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 findings supported by reasons,
on all the issues arising along with the
contentions put forth, and pressed by the
parties for decision of the appellate
court. Sitting as a court of first
appeal, it was the duty of the High Court
to deal with all the issues and the
evidence led by the parties before
recording its findings. The first appeal
is a valuable right and the parties have
a right to be heard both on questions of
law and on facts and the judgment in the
first appeal must address itself to all
the issues of law and fact and decide it
by giving reasons in support of the
findings. (Vide Santosh Hazari v.
Purushottam Tiwari – (2001) 3 SCC 179 at
p.188 para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram –
(2001) 4 SCC 756 at p.758, para 5.”
Vinod Kumar vs Gangadhar on 13 October, 2014
40. To a similar effect, are the observation of
this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar - (2015) 1
SCC 391, wherein it has been observed that in a
45
first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, the scope and powers
conferred on the First Appellate Court are
delineated in Order XLI of the Code and grounds
raised in the appeal, reappreciation of evidence
adduced by the parties and application of the
relevant legal principles and decided case law
have to be considered while deciding whether the
judgment of the Trial Court can be sustained or
not.
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs B. N. Thimmajamma & Others on 13 November, 1958
(a) One of the celebrated decisions of this Court
on proof of a will, reported in AIR 1959 SC 443 is
in the case of H.Venkatachala Iyenger vs.
B.N.Thimmajamma, wherein this Court has clearly
distinguished the nature of proof required for a
testament as opposed to any other document. The
relevant portion of the said judgment reads as
under:-