Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.83 seconds)Section 48 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 44 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 43 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Rimmalapudi Subba Rao vs Noony Veeraju And Ors. on 22 March, 1951
In Sri
Chunilal's case (supra), the Constitution Bench expressed agreement
Page 10 of 13
with the following view taken by a full Bench of the Madras High Court
in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju.
Deputy Commissioner, Hardoi vs Rama Krishna Narain And Others on 8 October, 1953
In Dy. Commnr. Hardoi v. Rama Krishna Narain also it was held
that a question of law of importance to the parties was a substantial
question of law entitling the appellant to a certificate under (the then)
Section 100 of the CPC.
Reserve Bank Of India And Anr. vs Ramkrishna Govind Morey on 20 January, 1976
20. The question of law raised will not be considered as a
substantial question of law, if it stands already decided by a larger
Bench of the High Court concerned or by the Privy Council or by the
Federal Court or by the Supreme Court. Where the facts required for a
point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant should not be allowed to
raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal.
There mere appreciation of facts, the documentary evidence or the
meaning of entries and the contents of the documents cannot be held
to be raising a substantial question of law. But where it is found that
the first appellate court has assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in
it, the same can be adjudicated in the second appeal, treating it as a
substantial question of law. Where the fact 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. This Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Ramkrishna
Govind Morey (1976 (1) SCC 803) held that whether the trial court
should not have exercised its jurisdiction differently is not a question of
law justifying interference.
Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs Seshammal on 8 May, 2006
In support of his argument, he has also referred
to para-17, 20, 21, 22, and 24 of the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Hero Vinoth(Minor) Vs.
Seshammal reported in (2006) 5 SCC 545 dated
08.05.2006 which is reproduced herein under:-
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar An Dors on 16 April, 1999
([See: Kondiba Dogadu Kadam v. Savitribai
Sopan Gujar and Others (1999(3) SCC 722)]