Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.45 seconds)Bhagwan Tana Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 October, 1973
So, human conduct,
probabilities of the case should also be taken
into consideration. As observed in the case of
State of U.P. vs.M.K.Anthony (AIR 1985 SC 48) even
an honest witness may differ in some details
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:47:50 :::
17
unrelated to the main incident because of power of
observation, retention and reproduction differ
with individuals. As often stated maxim `falsus in
uno falsus in omnibus' does not apply to India. As
observed in Bhagwan Tana Patil vs. State of
Maharashtra (AIR 1974 SC 21), the said maxim is
not to be blindly invoked in apprising the
evidence in courts when witnesses seldom tell
whole truth, but often resort to exaggeration,
embellishments and "padding up" to support story
however true in the main. The said principle
though stated in context of criminal cases is
equally true in civil matters.
Govindaraju vs Mariamman on 4 February, 2005
18. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 cited
case of Govindaraju v Mariamman 2005(3)Bom.C.R.87.
In this case, it is laid down that the scope of
exercise of jurisdiction by High Court in second
appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is limited to substantial questions of
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:47:50 :::
20
law framed at the time of admission of appeal or
additional questions framed at later date after
recording reasons for the same. It is observed
that, the High Court committed error in re-
appreciating the evidence and coming to a
conclusion other than one recorded by Court of
facts. So, it is argued that there could not be
reappreciation of evidence by this court in second
appeal.
State Bank Of India & Ors vs S.N. Goyal on 2 May, 2008
19. Learned counsel for Respondent also
relied upon the case of State Bank of India v.
S.N.Goyal reported in 2008 AIR SCW 4355. In
paragraph 9.3 of the judgment, errors generally
committed by High Court in dealing with second
appeal are enumerated and clause (g) is to the
effect that while deciding second appeal, there is
reappreciation of evidence and interference with
findings of fact, ignoring the questions of law.
Sundra Naicka Vadiyar (Dead) By Lrs. And ... vs Ramaswami Ayyar (Dead) By His Lrs. on 7 January, 1992
In
the case of Sundra Naicka Vadiyar v. Ramaswami
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:47:51 :::
21
Ayyar AIR 1994 S.C. 532. It has been observed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court that though there was
concurrent finding of fact, the High Court was
justified in reappreciating evidence as the
findings on possession were recorded by the trial
court and the first appellate court by ignoring
the document evidencing compromise, containing
recitals of surrender of possession and other
material evidence. In paragraph 3 of the
judgment, the Apex Court has observed that the
finding on question of possession recorded by two
courts below, was vitiated and interference in
second appeal was justified.
State Of Punjab vs Mohinder Singh & Ors on 28 September, 2007
21. Second case on the same point is State of
Punjab vs Mohinder Singh 2005 AIR SCW 1476, for
supporting the proposition that in second appeal,
non consideration of material document can be a
substantial question of law. In the reported
case, the first appellate court acted on
irrelevant material and left out of consideration
the relevant material. Question of law was said to
have been involved and, therefore, dismissal of
second appeal by observing that there was no
substantial question of law, was held improper.
In the present case, first appellate court and the
trial court both have ignored evidence of
appellant Tukaram and his witness DW-4 Gopinath
regarding letter of permission at Exh.96 issued by
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:47:51 :::
22
cooperative society for sale on guarantee to repay
entire loan amount of the society within fifteen
days by the appellant.
Gobind Ram vs Gian Chand on 27 September, 2000
25. Learned counsel for Respondent also
relied upon the case Gobind Ram v. Gian Chand 2000
AIR SCW 3468. In that case, facts were totally
different. The appellant in that case was trying
to wriggle out of contract in view of escalation
of prices of real estate properties. The
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:47:51 :::
24
Respondent had paid earnest money. The Appellant
offered to pay money, but the Respondent did not
cancel the contract. The Respondent had deposited
entire balance amount in court and was not taking
any unfair advantage.
Thiruvengada Pillai vs Navaneethammal & Anr on 19 February, 2008
26. Learned counsel for the appellant cited
case of V. Muhusami (D) by Lrs. vs. Angammal and
others, 2002 (3) MLR 16, wherein it is held that
when the plaintiff is subsequent purchaser and
where defendant is bonafide purchaser for value
without notice of agreement of sale in favour of
plaintiff, grant of refund of earnest money is
proper remedy to avoid hardship. Learned counsel
for the appellant also relied upon the case of
Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navneethammal AIR5 2008 SC
1541, and more particularly paragraph 17, wherein
it is held that it is for plaintiff to prove that
his agreement of sale was prior in point of time
to the agreement of sale in favour of the
defendant.