Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.28 seconds)Section 100 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Shyam Sundar Dutta vs Baikuntha Nath Banerjee on 21 September, 1994
In Shyam Sunder Dutta's case (cited supra), the Apex Court in paragraph 5 of its
judgment held as below (at Page 968 of AIR SCW) :--
R. Ramachandran Ayyar vs Ramalingam Chettiar on 10 August, 1962
"Sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Sub-section (4) of Section 100 further provides that when the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. But it may be pointed out that the High Court formulated no such question of law on basis of which it proposed to interfere with the findings of facts. It has been the consistent view of this Court that there is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact, based upon an appreciation of the relevant evidence. There is a plethora of case-law in support of this view. To quote a few, references may be made to the decision in V. Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam Chettiar, , wherein this Court took the view that even if the appreciation of evidence made by the lower appellate Court is patently erroneous and the finding of fact recorded in consequence is grossly erroneous, that cannot be said to introduce a substantial error or defect in the procedure and the High Court cannot interfere with the conclusions of fact recorded by the lower appellate Court.
Bhagwan Das vs Smt. Jiley Kaur And Another on 27 August, 1990
This view has been reiterated by this Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Jiley Kaur, . This being the position, the High Court was not justified in reappreciating the evidence and substituting its own conclusions for the well-reasoned findings recorded by the Courts of facts."
P. L. Bapuswami vs N. Pattay Gounder on 7 December, 1965
11. It is then submitted by Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Counsel for the respondent, that question of valuation of property is one of fact and the High Court is not entitled to go into it in second appeal. For this, he relied upon a decision in P. L. Bapuswami v. N. Pattay Gounder, . No doubt, this criticism of the learned Counsel for the respondent is justified in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. However, besides the question of valuation, there is aforesaid substantial question of law involved in this appeal and, therefore, if the High Court in second appeal finds that the lower appellate Court has not considered the relevant documentary and oral evidence in its proper perspective and the effect of the said evidence on the rights of the parties, the High Court is certainly entitled to reconsider the evidence by drawing inferences from the admitted position.
Kochukakkada Aboobacker (Dead) By Lrs. ... vs Attah Kasim & Ors on 16 January, 1996
I am fortified in this view by a decision in Kochukakkada Aboobacker (dead) by L.Rs. v. Attah Kasim, .