Back
I. P. MUKERJI, SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Anu Mondal – Appellant
Versus
Jayanti Mondal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. At the stage of admission of the second appeal, we allowed learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents to participate in the proceeding. We have examined in detail the judgment and decree of the learned first court and of the first appellate court.
2. One Bhupal Mondal was an employee of the respondent no. 2. He died on 12th June, 2006 after nominating the respondent no. 1 as his nominee to receive the benefits receivable on his death from the respondent no. 2.
3. The material issue for consideration before both the courts below was whether the appellant no. 1 and the respondent no. 1 were or any of them was the legally wedded wife of Bhupal Mondal or whether neither was.
4. The consequential question, which arose, was which of the two the appellant no. 1 or the respondent no. 1 was entitled to receive this benefit.
5. On a prima facie examination of the judgments of the courts below, we find that there is grossly insufficient and inadequate appreciation of the material evidence by the learned judge. This in our opinion raises the question whether those decisions are perverse?
6. On that very question, we admit the appeal.
7. We heard out the appeal itself today i
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of framing substantial questions of law and the distinction between appellate jurisdiction and review jurisdiction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a substantial question of law to be involved in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing the ....
The nomination in the service register and the sufficiency of evidence to prove marriage were the central legal points established in the judgment.
A will's validity requires proof of execution, with the burden resting on its propounder to eliminate any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.
The appellate court affirmed a daughter's entitlement to inherit property equally due to her established lineage and the 2005 amendments to inheritance laws granting daughters coparcener rights.
An appellate court should not lightly interfere with the findings of fact made by the trial court, especially when the trial court has had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.
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
