Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., M.H. KANIA, J.
Maniar Ismail Sab and others, Appellants
Versus
Maniar Fakruddin and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1693 of 1987
Decided on 27-4-1989.
- in the case of Maniar Ismail Sab v. Maniar Fakruddin, AIR 1989 SC 1509 = (1989) 2 SCC 685, the High Court appraised the evidence on record and interfered with the findings of fact reached by the two Courts below on the basis of evidence before them. This the High Court was not competent to do in a second appeal.
JUDGMENT
PATHAK, CJI. :— We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are of opinion that this appeal should be allowed.
2. The High Court had before it a second appeal under S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the appeal could have been entertained only if a question of law arose in the case. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court shows that the High Court appraised the evidence on the record and interfered with the findings of fact reached by the two courts below on the basis of evidence before them that the property in dispute was part of the land assigned under Exhibit P-3 and that the plaintiffs case that Abdul Sab had constructed the two shops in question had not been established. The High Court has interfered with these findings of facts in the view that the two courts below had made out a new case by concluding that there was no partition between Abdul Sab and Mohammad Sab and they were tenants in common in respect of the suit property. What the High Court has done is to reverse the findings of fact upon considerations which proceed entirely upon facts. This the High Court was not competent to do in a second appeal under S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court are restored. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation : AIR 1989 SC 1509 = (1989) 2 SCC 685
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
