Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
Banumathi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. civil procedure on second appeal (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. jurisdiction of high court under cpc (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. interplay of statute and factual determinations (Para 6 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. judgment on factual matters (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. final ruling on the appeal (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT :
K. Murali Shankar, J.
The Second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.60 of 2018, dated 04.07.2022 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, modifying the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.263 of 2008, dated 20.06.2016 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul.
2. The appellant is the first plaintiff. The appellant/first plaintiff along with respondents 2 to 4/plaintiffs 2 to 4 filed a suit, directing the defendant to receive Rs.90,000/- payable by the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and to execute a document cancelling the sale deed, dated 26.10.2007 or in alternative, directing the defendant to pay Rs.2,20,000/- with interest at Rs.2/- per Rs.100 per month from 26.10.2007 till payment.
3. The first respondent/defendant filed a written statement and contested the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, after framing necessary issues and after full tr
The jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC limits High Courts to substantial questions of law and does not allow interference with factual findings.
The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law, not factual disputes, and dismissal of a previous suit for default does not invoke res judicata if base....
Second Appeal – Under Section 100, C.P.C., High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by first Appellate Court which is final Court of facts.
The High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals is limited to substantial questions of law; factual findings by lower courts are upheld unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The court held that the plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and concurrent findings by lower courts are not to be disturbed without a substantial question of....
High Court under Section 100 CPC cannot re-appreciate evidence absent substantial question of law; admitted receipt shifts burden to defendant.
The plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, which was not established in this case.
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
