Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.42 seconds)Section 103 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade vs Maroti Bhaurao Marnor on 5 February, 1999
It is well settled by a long series of decisions of the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council and of this Court, that a High
Court, on second appeal, cannot go into questions of fact,
however, erroneous the findings of fact recorded by the courts
of fact may be. It is not necessary to cite those decisions.
Indeed, the learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondents did
not and could not contend that the High Court was competent
to go behind the finds of fact concurrently recorded by the two
courts of fact.
It shall be quite relevant to quote following portion from para 27 of the judgment
Mst. Sugani Vs. Rameshwar Dass & anr (AIR 2006 SC 2172)
Where the first appellate court is shown to have exercised its
discretion in a judicial manner, it cannot be termed to be an error
either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal.
Following portion from para 14 of the judgment Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade
Vs. Maroti Bhaurao Marnor (AIR 1999 SC 864), is apt to be quoted:
Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001
.Whether a finding of fact reached by courts below
is against the weight of evidence or not is a question which will
remain in the realm of appreciation of evidence and does not
project any question of law, much less, any substantial question
of law, which can enable the High Court in the second appeal
to upset such a finding of fact.
It shall be quite apt to quote following portion from para 14 of the judgment
Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) (AIR 2001 SC 965):
It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstances
of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and
involved in the case, or not: the paramount overall consideration
being the need for striking a judicious balance between the
indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling
necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis.
The Honble Apex Court in para 5 of the judgment Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs.
Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors (AIR 1999 SC 2213) has held:
The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the
opinion of the first appellate Court unless it is found that the
conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous
being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or
its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the
apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived
at without evidence.
It shall be quite apt to quote para 10 of the judgment Navaneethammal Vs. Arjun
Chetty (AIR 1996 SC 3521):
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar An Dors on 16 April, 1999
.Whether a finding of fact reached by courts below
is against the weight of evidence or not is a question which will
remain in the realm of appreciation of evidence and does not
project any question of law, much less, any substantial question
of law, which can enable the High Court in the second appeal
to upset such a finding of fact.
It shall be quite apt to quote following portion from para 14 of the judgment
Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) (AIR 2001 SC 965):
It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstances
of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and
involved in the case, or not: the paramount overall consideration
being the need for striking a judicious balance between the
indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling
necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis.
The Honble Apex Court in para 5 of the judgment Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs.
Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors (AIR 1999 SC 2213) has held:
The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the
opinion of the first appellate Court unless it is found that the
conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous
being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or
its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the
apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived
at without evidence.
It shall be quite apt to quote para 10 of the judgment Navaneethammal Vs. Arjun
Chetty (AIR 1996 SC 3521):
Navaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996
.Whether a finding of fact reached by courts below
is against the weight of evidence or not is a question which will
remain in the realm of appreciation of evidence and does not
project any question of law, much less, any substantial question
of law, which can enable the High Court in the second appeal
to upset such a finding of fact.
It shall be quite apt to quote following portion from para 14 of the judgment
Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) (AIR 2001 SC 965):
It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstances
of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and
involved in the case, or not: the paramount overall consideration
being the need for striking a judicious balance between the
indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling
necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis.
The Honble Apex Court in para 5 of the judgment Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs.
Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors (AIR 1999 SC 2213) has held:
The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the
opinion of the first appellate Court unless it is found that the
conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous
being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or
its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the
apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived
at without evidence.
It shall be quite apt to quote para 10 of the judgment Navaneethammal Vs. Arjun
Chetty (AIR 1996 SC 3521):
Dharmarajan & Others vs Valliammal & Others on 11 December, 2007
(2) Whether the burden is not on the plaintiff who is out of
possession to prove that he has got valid title in the suit
properties as laid down by this court?
Veerayee Ammal vs Seeni Ammal on 19 October, 2001
It shall be quite apt to quote para 7 of the judgment Veerayee Ammal Vs. Seeni
Ammal ({2002} 1 SCC 134):
Dattatraya Laxman Kamble vs Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde & Anr on 28 April, 1999
Learned counsel for the appellants while relying on the judgment Dattatraya
Laxman Kamble Vs. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune & anr. reported in AIR 1999 SC
2226, contends that the reasonable and bona fide requirement is missing. Under the
garb of genuine requirement learned counsel wants re-appreciation of the evidence
which is not permissible unless found to be perverse, but no such perversity has been
noticed so as to persuade the Court to formulate a question for determination.