Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Gauri Shanker And Ors vs Keshar Dev on 11 April, 2022 cites

Umerkhan vs Bismillabi @ Babulal Shaikh & Ors on 28 July, 2011

In case of Umerkhan Vs. Bismillabi [(2011)9 SCC 684] Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded that if a second appeal is admitted on substantial question of law, while hearing second appeal finally, can re-frame substantial question of law or can frame substantial question of law afresh or even can hold that no substantial question of law involved, but the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction of Section 100 CPC without formulating substantial question of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 68 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar An Dors on 16 April, 1999

15. Both courts below have come to a concurrent finding that the defendant No.1 was tenant of plaintiff and he sublet the shop to defendant No.2. Therefore, the appellate court found the first appeal to be devoid of merits. Consequently the decree passed by the trial court was upheld by the appellate court. Counsel for defendants have not been able to prove their case or to point out any perversity or make out any substantial question of law in (Downloaded on 12/04/2022 at 09:11:33 PM) (10 of 11) [CSA-432/1996] respect of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as also the appellate court. The conclusions of the courts below are based on findings of fact. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [(1999)3 SCC 722] has held that the concurrent findings of facts even if erroneous cannot be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of the powers under section 100 CPC. This proposition is well established. Findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence are the province of the trial court and the first appellate court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 739 - Full Document

Damodar Lal vs Sohan Devi And Ors on 5 January, 2016

Further in case of Damodar Lal Vs. Sohan Devi [(2016)3 SCC 78] the Apex Court held that even if finding of fact is wrong, that by itself will not constitute a question of law. The wring finding should stem out of a complete misreading of evidence or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises. The safest approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable man's inference on the facts. To him, if the conclusion on the facts in evidence made by the court below is possible, there is no perversity. If not, the finding is perverse. Inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not perversity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 123 - Full Document
1