Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Narayanan Rajendran And Anr vs Lekshmy Sarojini And Ors on 12 February, 2009
v. Rameshwar Das, (2006) 11 SCC 587, Gurdev Kaur
v. Kaki, (2007) 1 SCC 546, Praksah Kumar v. State of Gujrat,
(2004) 5 SCC 140, Thiagarajan v. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil,
(2004) 5 SCC 762 and Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini,
(2009) 5 SCC 264]. It is equally well settled that this Court in exercise
of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot re-
appreciate evidence.
Thimmaiah And Ors vs Ningamma And Anr on 25 August, 2000
[See: Thimmaiah v. Ningamma, (2000) 7 SCC
409]. It is equally well settled that where on appreciation of evidence,
even if two views are possible, this Court in exercise of powers under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not interfere.
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar An Dors on 16 April, 1999
[See:
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Guzar, (1999) 3 SCC
722 and Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal, (2002) 1 SCC 134]. It
has also been held by the Supreme Court that interference with a
question of fact is not permissible.
Veerayee Ammal vs Seeni Ammal on 19 October, 2001
[See:
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Guzar, (1999) 3 SCC
722 and Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal, (2002) 1 SCC 134]. It
has also been held by the Supreme Court that interference with a
question of fact is not permissible.
Basayya I. Mathad vs Rudrayya S. Mathad & Ors on 24 January, 2008
[See: Basayya I. Mathad v.
Rudrayya S. Mathad, (2008) 3 SCC 120].
Kanhaiyalal Thakurdas And Ors. vs The Gulab Bai Digambar Jain Kanya ... on 22 September, 1964
9. So far as the case relied upon by the counsel for the appellant in
the case of Kanhaiyalal Thakurdas (supra), it is clear that the said case
is of Educational Institution which has been given exemption under
Section 3(2) of the Accommodation Control Act. But, here in this
case, the plaintiff is not claiming such exemption but claiming eviction
under Section 106 of the T.P. Act.