Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.43 seconds)Janardan And Another vs Jagdish Prasad And Others on 28 March, 2014
This second appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs being
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2017 passed in R.C.A.33
of 2015 by the Additional District Judge, Link Court, Rampur Baghelan,
District Satna, M.P. Learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal
filed by the appellants- plaintiffs confirming the judgment and decree dated
31.7.2012 passed in Civil Suit No.106-A of 2010 by the Court of learned
6
Civil Judge, Class-II, Rampur Baghelan, district Satna (Janardan Prasad and
another Vs. Jagdish Prasad and others).
Narayanan Rajendran And Anr vs Lekshmy Sarojini And Ors on 12 February, 2009
12. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings
of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well defined by
10
catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court cannot interfere with
the finding of fact until or unless the same is perverse or contrary to material
on record. [See: Narayan Rajendran and Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini and
Others, (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and Others,
(2001) 7 SCC 189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Antoher, (2012)
8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa, (2011) 1 SCC 158
Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288,
Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare,
(2013) 7 SCC 173 and Laxmidevamma and Others v. Ranganath and
Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264] The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
courts below are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record
which by no stretch of imagination can be said either to be perverse or based
on no evidence.
Shri Hafazat Hussain S/O Mubarak ... vs Abdul Majeed S/O Sri Wali Mohd on 8 August, 2001
12. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings
of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well defined by
10
catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court cannot interfere with
the finding of fact until or unless the same is perverse or contrary to material
on record. [See: Narayan Rajendran and Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini and
Others, (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and Others,
(2001) 7 SCC 189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Antoher, (2012)
8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa, (2011) 1 SCC 158
Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288,
Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare,
(2013) 7 SCC 173 and Laxmidevamma and Others v. Ranganath and
Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264] The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
courts below are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record
which by no stretch of imagination can be said either to be perverse or based
on no evidence.
Union Of India vs Ibrahim Uddin & Anr on 17 July, 2012
12. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings
of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well defined by
10
catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court cannot interfere with
the finding of fact until or unless the same is perverse or contrary to material
on record. [See: Narayan Rajendran and Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini and
Others, (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and Others,
(2001) 7 SCC 189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Antoher, (2012)
8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa, (2011) 1 SCC 158
Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288,
Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare,
(2013) 7 SCC 173 and Laxmidevamma and Others v. Ranganath and
Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264] The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
courts below are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record
which by no stretch of imagination can be said either to be perverse or based
on no evidence.
D.R. Rathna Murthy vs Ramappa on 8 October, 2010
12. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings
of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well defined by
10
catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court cannot interfere with
the finding of fact until or unless the same is perverse or contrary to material
on record. [See: Narayan Rajendran and Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini and
Others, (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and Others,
(2001) 7 SCC 189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Antoher, (2012)
8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa, (2011) 1 SCC 158
Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288,
Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare,
(2013) 7 SCC 173 and Laxmidevamma and Others v. Ranganath and
Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264] The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
courts below are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record
which by no stretch of imagination can be said either to be perverse or based
on no evidence.
Laxmidevamma & Ors vs Ranganath & Ors on 20 January, 2015
12. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings
of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well defined by
10
catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court cannot interfere with
the finding of fact until or unless the same is perverse or contrary to material
on record. [See: Narayan Rajendran and Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini and
Others, (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and Others,
(2001) 7 SCC 189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Antoher, (2012)
8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa, (2011) 1 SCC 158
Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288,
Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare,
(2013) 7 SCC 173 and Laxmidevamma and Others v. Ranganath and
Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264] The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
courts below are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record
which by no stretch of imagination can be said either to be perverse or based
on no evidence.
1