Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)
Ramlagan Jamadar And Anr. vs Akleshwar Prasad And Ors. on 25 November, 1957 cites

The Midnapore Zamindary Company vs The Secretary Of State For India on 20 July, 1929

44. The law on the subject is settled beyond dispute that where there is no error or defect in the procedure, nor any error of law, within the meaning of Section 100, of the Code of Civil Procedure, the finding of the first appellate Court upon the question of fact is final, if that Court had before it evidence proper for consideration in support of the finding. A finding of fact, however erroneous, cannot be challenged in a second appeal, and, it must stand final, as a second appeal can be entertained only on the specific grounds mentioned in Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure. The only question, therefore, which the High Court on second appeal may consider in such a case is, whether the lower appellate Court had before it any evidence proper for its consideration in support of its finding: The Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Secy. of State, AIR 1929 PC 286: 56 Ind App 388 (S) and Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh, AIR 1951 SC 193: 1951 SCR 258 (T).
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Gogun Chunder Ghose vs Dhuronidhur Mundul And Ors. on 28 June, 1881

37. The Indian decision relied upon by Mr. Mukherji was Gogun Chander Ghose v. Dhuronindhur Mundul, ILR 7 Cal (516 (Q), In this case, the plaintiff, who had a bond executed in his favour by one of three brothers, forged the signature of the other two brothers to the bond, and brought a suit upon it in its altered form against the three brothers. The forgery having been established, the Court of first instance dismissed the suit against all the three defendants, and this decision was affirmed on appeal. On second appeal to the High Court also, it was affirmed by a Bench of the Calcutta High Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Nathu Lal vs Gomti Kuar on 27 May, 1940

35. The effect of making such an alteration without the consent of the party bound is exactly the same as that of cancelling the deed. The avoidance of the deed is not retrospective and does not revest or reconvey any estate or interest in property which passed under it. And the deed may be put in evidence to prove that such estate or interest so passed or for any other purpose than to maintain an action to enforce some agreement therein contained. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Edn. 2, Vol 10, p. 227, para 287, quoted in extenso in Nathu Lal v. Mt. Gomti Kuar, AIR 1940 PC 160: 67 Ind App 318 (P).
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1