Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)
G.Chandranmohan ( In Crp Wrongly Shown ... vs G.Chandranmohan ( In Crp Wrongly Shown ... on 17 October, 2014 cites

Mammu vs Hari Mohan & Anr on 7 January, 2000

In the light of the decision in Mammu vs. Hari Mohan (2000 (1) KLT 835(SC)) and in Baby vs. Travancore Devaswom Board (1999 (1) KLT SC SN 1(C.No.1)) which are heavily relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is clear that the High Court can go far beyond what is contemplated under Section 103 and if it is satisfied that issues of fact have been erroneously decided to the prejudice of one of the parties, the court may be justified in interfering with the decision of the R.P.No.372/2015 6 authorities below exercising its revisional jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 11 - K T Thomas - Full Document

Baby vs Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors on 6 November, 1998

In the light of the decision in Mammu vs. Hari Mohan (2000 (1) KLT 835(SC)) and in Baby vs. Travancore Devaswom Board (1999 (1) KLT SC SN 1(C.No.1)) which are heavily relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is clear that the High Court can go far beyond what is contemplated under Section 103 and if it is satisfied that issues of fact have been erroneously decided to the prejudice of one of the parties, the court may be justified in interfering with the decision of the R.P.No.372/2015 6 authorities below exercising its revisional jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

P.P.Narayanan Nair vs The Kerala State Electricity Board on 14 October, 2011

3. To begin with, it was not Exts.A16 and A17 which were produced before this Court which weighed with this Court. There were many other facts also. It may be recalled that before Thankamma filed a suit for partition, there was a suit for redemption by two of the mortgagors without making other mortgagors as parties and that the very same mortgagees pointed out that they are entitled to fixity of tenure which was accepted by the court and suit was dismissed. Obviously all the mortgagors are bound by the said decision. It is in that context R.P.No.372/2015 4 the claim of Thankamma that she obtained possession by the partition suit will have to be considered. Obviously Thankamma had only equity of redemption. Any right which she get from partition suit can only be with reference to her share in equity of redemption. This is fortified by the fact that there was a land acquisition proceedings in which Thankamma received amount on behalf of the mortgagors and she never received any single pai as a person in actual possession of the property. If that be so, it is clear that the claim that in the partition suit delivery was given to her share cannot be accepted. Those were the main factors which persuaded this Court to come to the conclusion that Thankamma could not have been in possession of the property.
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - P Bhavadasan - Full Document
1