Back
P.B.GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.C.DAS GUPTA, J.R.MUDHOLKAR
V. Ramachandra Ayyar – Appellant
Versus
Ramalingam Chettiar – Respondent
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals is limited to examining whether there has been a substantial error or defect in the procedure that could have affected the decision on the merits. The Court emphasized that findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court are generally binding and cannot be challenged merely because they appear unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, unless the error amounts to a procedural defect that could have influenced the outcome. Specifically, the Court held that a mere disagreement with the evidence or conclusions of the lower appellate court does not justify interference under S. 100(1)(c), unless such disagreement stems from a substantial procedural error that could have affected the decision. Consequently, the appellate court's factual findings, supported by evidence and not perverse, should be upheld, and the High Court's power to interfere is confined to correcting errors of a procedural nature that could have impacted the decision on the merits (!) (!) .
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: This appeal by special leave raises the old familiar question about the limits of the High Court s jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact in a Second Appeal under S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendants 1 & 2 who are the appellants before us contend that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate Court in their favour in dismissing the suit filed against them by respondent No. 1. Before dealing with this question, it is necessary to refer to the material facts leading to the present dispute between the parties.
2. It appears that there was a partnership between appellant No. 1 Ramachandra Iyer, his father-in-law V. Kuppuswami Ayyar who was the father of appellant No. 2 Vanchinatha Ayyar, Rama Ayyar and Lakshmanan Chettiar. This partnership worked two mills in Kasba Chidambaram. Lakshmanan Chettiar is the father of respondent No. 1, the plaintiff, and respondent No. 2, defendant No. 3. After the death of V. V. Kuppuswami Ayyar the second appellant took his place in the partnership. Rama Ayyar retired from the partnership in September, 1936. Lakshmanan Chettiar die
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
