M. L. Sethi vs R. P. Kapur & Anr on 23 September, 1966
7. The Supreme Court in M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur, held as Follows (at p. 2383):
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)B. Chenchuram Naidu vs Muhammad Bahavuddin Sahib on 26 April, 1932
In Chenchuram Naidu v. Md. Bahavuddin AIR 1933 Mad 3 the expression, subject-matter' was considered with reference to the provisions of O. 23, R. 1. The facts of that case were, that the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment against hro defendants, Defendant No. 1 was a tenant paying rent to the plaintiff. However the 2nd defendant was made a party. A written statement was filed putting the plaintiff to strict proof of his title..
Ramric Lal Saha vs Sachindra Narayan Roy And Ors. on 14 March, 1967
11. The question as to what is the value Of the subject-matter of the suit for purposes of granting certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court came up for consideration in Ramric LaI v. Sachindra Narayan . It is held there in that in a suit for eviction of a tenant by his landlord, the subject-matter in dispute is tenancy and it value is different from the value of the Property demised and though the market value of the flat may be more than Rs. 20,000./- but the market value of the tenant's interest cannot be the same. It was held that in the absence of an, material to show that the tenant's interest is of the value more than Rs. 20,000/- a certificate under Art. 133 (1) (a) cannot be granted.
The Managing Director (Mig) Hindustan ... vs Ajit Prasad Tarway on 5 November, 1971
14. It is rightly contended by the respondent's counsel that in accepting the evidence of P. W. 1, the trial Court did not commit any error of jurisdiction and there fore no interference is warranted under the provisions of S. 115, C. P. C It is held in Hindustan Aeronautics v. Ajit prasad that where the lower appellate Court's order is within its jurisdiction, the High Court should not interfere even if the order is right or wrong or in accordance with law or not, unless it has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularly. It can be repeated that no rebuttal evidence has been let in by the defendant to contradict the evidence of P. W. 1.
Section 16 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Subodh Chandra Nag vs K.L. Bank, Ltd. And Ors. on 17 January, 1941
In Subodh Chandra v. K. L. Bank Ltd., AIR 1941 Cal 659 the provisions of O. 33, R. 1 were considered and it was held that the equity of redemption cannot be regarded to be the Subiect-matter of the Suit where the suit is for enforcement of the mortgage. It further held that the value of equity of redemption cannot be excluded by the Court from its consideration in determining whether the mortgagor is a pauper or not.
1