Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.03 seconds)Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 126 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Ranganatha Pillai vs Anandan And Anr. on 27 November, 2000
17. Following the said decisions, this Court in RANGANATHA PILLAI v. ANANDAN (2000(1) M.L.J.535) and MUTHURAMALINGAM v. PRIYA (2000(1) M.L.J.464) has observed that when factual findings were rendered on the basis of the materials by the last court of fact being the first appellate court, this Court would not interfere with those findings sitting in second appeal by invoking Sec. 100 C.P.C., especially when it is not established that those findings are perverse.
Meenakshiammal vs Ramasamy Muthiriar And Ors. on 3 April, 1998
22. It is a settled position of law as laid down in MENAKSHIAMMAL v. RAMASAMY MUDALIAR (1998 (3) M.L.J. 390),SAROJINI AMMAL v. KRISHNAVENI AMMAL ALIAS BABY AMMAL (1990(1)L.W.599),JAYALAKSHMI v. KARLIAPERUMAL (1995(98) L.W.167) and BALASUBRAMANIA PATTAR v. KANDASAMY PATHAT (1999 II M.L.J.367) that once a gift is accepted and in the absence of power of revocation, the settlement cannot be revoked as provided under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Arumugham (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors vs Sundarambal And Anr on 29 April, 1999
14. At the outset, this Court has to be reminded of the scope of Section 100 C.P.C., while dealing with the second appeal. As held by the Supreme Court in ARUMUGHAM v. SUNDARAMBAL , the second appellate Court cannot interfere with the judgment of the first appellate Court on the ground that the first appellate Court had not come to close grips with the reasoning of the trial Court.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar An Dors on 16 April, 1999
In KONDIBA DAGADU KADAM v. SAVITRIBAI SOPAN GUJAR (1999 II M.L.J.105), the Supreme Court has observed that 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.
Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001
16. It is also held by the Supreme Court in SANTHOSH HAZARI v. PURUSHOTTAM TIWARI (2000(1) CTC 505) that the judgment of the first appellate Court should reflect conscious application of mind and the Court should record its findings supported by reasons on all the issues along with the contentions put forth for decision and that the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of the trial Court on question of fact unless there is special feature about evidence of particular witness which has escaped the trial Judge's notice or there is sufficient balance of improbability to displace his opinion as to where credibility lies.