Back
(2009) 17 Supreme Court Cases 389
B.N. KIRPALAND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
TALLAM GANGADHARAN (DEAD) BY LRS – Appellants
Versus
U. ISMAIIL SAHEB – Respondent .
Civil Appeal No. 821 of 1989
Decided on : November 4, 1999
declaration - parcel of land - The court held that the adverse findings against the appellant were pure findings of fact based upon acceptable evidence and supported by cogent and convincing reasons, and therefore not open to attack. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arose. The decision of the Additional District Judge did not give rise to any question of law. The said decision was based on the appreciation of evidence which was adduced before the courts.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction regarding a parcel of land, which was initially held in favor of the plaintiff by the trial court but reversed by the lower appellate court. The High Court in second appeal upheld the adverse findings against the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the adverse findings against the appellant were based on acceptable evidence and convincing reasons, and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arose. The decision of the Additional District Judge was based on the appreciation of evidence and did not give rise to any question of law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adverse findings against the appellant, the question of law, and the decision of the Additional District Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the adverse findings were based on acceptable evidence and convincing reasons, and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arose. The decision of the Additional District Judge was found to be based on the appreciation of evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
ORDER
1. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal pertains to a parcel of land which was described in the plaintiff's suit as included in XIYIIFEDC of Ext. C-2. In respect of this land for which suit for declaration and injunction had been filed, the trial court, after remand, had held that the plaintiff was entitled to the declaration sought for. The lower appellate court by its judgment dated 5-2-1986 reversed the said decision and confined the declaration in favour of the plaintiff in respect of another parcel of land.
2. The High Court in second appeal by its judgment dated 22-8-1988 held that the adverse findings recorded against the appellant herein were pure findings of fact based upon acceptable evidence and supported by cogent and convincing reasons and, therefore, not open to attack. The High Court concluded that no question of law much less a substantial question of law arose.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are agreeable with the aforesaid observations of the High Court. The decision of the Additional District Judge did not give rise to any question of law. The said decision was based on the appreciation of evidence which was adduced before the courts.
This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
AI
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
