Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan vs Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (D) & Ors on 9 July, 2007
Similarly, while relying upon the observation of the
Apex Court in paragraph-14 in Ramchandra Sakharam
Mahajan Vs. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (Dead) and others
{(2007)6 Supreme Court Cases 737}, the learned counsel
submitted that there should have been independent appraisal of
the various documents produced by the plaintiffs in the light of
the pleadings and the oral evidence available, to come to a
conclusion as to whether the plaintiffs had established their title or
not. In the present case, the plaintiffs have brought a suit for
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and restraining them
from demolishing the wall encircling the suit land by the
plaintiffs. The courts below upon appreciation of all evidence
have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs could not
demonstrate their right and title and so for as the possession of the
plaintiffs is concerned, though their claim is that they are in
possession since long, i.e., for more than 60 years, none of the
witnesses produced by them are more than 38 years of age and not
only that none of them have disclosed their source of knowledge
regarding the possession of the plaintiffs for the last 60 years.
That apart, the most vital person, who was the plaintiff no.1
10
himself, who has stated in the plaint that he had instituted a case
being Manager and Karta of the family, had not been examined as
plaintiffs' witnesss.
Haryana State Industrial Development ... vs M/S Cork Manufacturing Co on 27 August, 2007
Reliance has also been made upon another decision of
the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development
Corporation Vs. Cork Manufacturing Co. {(2007)8 Supreme
Court Cases 120}. However, in that case, it has been held by the
Supreme Court that the court had dismissed the appeal without
advertence to the relevant materials available in that case which is
not a fact in this case as the appellate court has perused the
materials on record and decided the points in issue.
Madhukar And Ors vs Sangram And Ors on 20 April, 2001
It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that
in Madhukar and others Vs. Sangram and others {2001(3)
PLJR (SC) 192}, the Apex Court has observed that sitting as a
court of first appeal, it is the duty of the High Court to deal with
all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording
its finding. However, in that case, it has been noticed by the Apex
Court that the first appellate court was singularly silent of any
discussion either of documentary evidence or oral evidence in that
court which was discussed by the trial court. Whereas, in the
present case, the appellate court has discussed all the respective
submissions of the parties and the evidence led on their behalf and
the findings recorded by the court below and had come to the
9
conclusion thereafter.
Nicholas V. Menezes vs Joseph M. Menezes & Ors on 25 March, 2009
In yet another decision relied upon by the learned
counsel in Nicholas V. Menezes Vs. Joseph M. Menezes and
others {(2009)4 Supreme Courts Cases 791), the appeal was
dismissed by a learned Single Judge of High Court without calling
for the records and proceedings and without appreciating the
pleadings, evidence oral or documentary on record. Thus, it has
been held by the Apex Court that the duty was cost upon the
appellate court to consider the evidence on record and also
questions of law. However, in the case in hand, learned counsel
could not point out any infirmity in the findings recorded by
appellate court. It could not be shown that deposition of any
11
witness who was competent to speak regarding the possession of
the plaintiffs for the last 60 years was not considered. Learned
counsel failed to show as to why the defendants' witnesses were
not cross examined on the point of existence of the concerned
passage or why one of the plaintiffs who was old enough and
competent to say regarding their possession upon the suit land,
was not examined as a witness? It is well settled that in case of
concurrent findings of two lower courts, heavy burden lies on
appellant seeking to disturb them in second appeal.
M/S Nopany Investments (P) Ltd vs Santokh Singh (Huf) on 10 December, 2007
The Apex Court in Nopani Investments (P) Ltd. Vs.
Santokh Singh (HUF) {(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 728} has
held that in case of reversal, the first appellate court should give
some reason for reversing the finding of the trial court whereas in
case of affirmation the first appellate court accepts the reasons and
findings of the trial court. In the case in hand, the first appellate
court had affirmed the findings of the trial court which were based
on consideration of the materials available on record.
Section 144 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1