Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.26 seconds)
Dr. H.T. Vira Reddi vs Kistamma on 12 January, 1968 cites

Earnest John White vs Mrs. Kathleen Olive White And Others on 10 March, 1958

21. Learned Counsel for the respondent however relied upon . to state that this Court whilst exercising jurisdiction under the Letters Patent ought not to interfere with the findings of fact rendered by the learned appellate Judge. was a case in which Venkatadri, J., virtually heard a second appeal in a matrimonial action. In those circumstances Ananta-naravanan. C.J., (as he then was) and Ramakrishnan, J., were of the view that the findings of the lower Court are binding in second appeal and Venkatadri, J., had no jurisdiction to re-assess the evidence and come to any other conclusion even if the learned Judge thinks that the evidence ought to be appreciated differently or that some part of the testimony ought not to be believed. We may however advert to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Md. Maraicair v. Veyanna Meeru Thevar, and to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Earnist John White V. Kathleen Olive White . Rajamannar. C. J. and Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in AIR 1854 Mad 894 observed-
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 54 - J L Kapur - Full Document

John Howe vs Charlotte Howe on 7 August, 1913

20. We have now to consider whether matrimonial offence within the meaning of Section 10(1)(f) can be said to have been committed by the respondent, beyond reasonable doubt. (His Lordship discussed the evidence and proceeded.) It is not so much the unchastlty of the wife that is the subject-matter of these proceedings; but it is the factum of the birth of a child beyond the period of twelve months after the cessation of marital consortium between the spouses. As pointed out by a Full Bench of this Court in John Howe V. Charlotte Howe. ILR 38 Mad 466=(AIR 1916 Mad 338) (FB)-
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Mohindra Supply Company on 5 September, 1961

4. Before I examine the evidence on this aspect, it will be convenient to refer to the law as to the precise limit of jurisdiction of this Court and the scope of an enquiry in an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court. The appeal C. M. A. 83 of 1961 against the judgment of the learned City Civil Judge was preferred to this Court under Section 28 of the Act of 1955. The Act does not contain any prohibition or restriction as to a further appeal like Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act, covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co., with the result, that the appellant has got a further right of appeal to this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, The question is whether in such a Letters Patent appeal, the Bench is entitled to consider questions and findings of facts and reach its own conclusion, whether affirming or differing from the findings of the learned Single Judge or whether the Bench is bound by the findings of fact reached by the learned Single Judge. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent provides (in so far as it is material):--
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 178 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next