Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Prem Chandra Singhal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh now Uttarakhand Through Collector Dehradun AND OTHERS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. second appellate courts cannot exceed lower courts' findings. (Para 1) |
| 2. plaintiff claims property based on 1977 sale deed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. defendants contest plaintiff's ownership, citing state laws. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. initial appellate court failed to determine crucial legal points. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. case remanded for proper issue determination in line with law. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
1. There are certain circumstances, under which, the Court at times is also cornered from taking any particular specific view while adjudicating a lis between the parties and that difficulty is, particularly, faced by the Courts, while exercising its superior power of Appeal, as vested in it under Section 100 of the C.P.C., particularly, when the issue, which otherwise ought to have been a subject matter of determination of the controversy under Section 9 or 96 of Code of Civil Procedure is either not considered by the Trial Court or the Appellate Court, then, while exercising the powers under Section 96 of the C.P.C., in such cases, the Second Appellate Court is constraint that the Second Appellate Court could n
Second Appellate Courts cannot substitute findings or decide based on unframed issues; procedural adherence is crucial for judicial fairness.
Second Appellate Court cannot decide unframed issues on land control act applicability despite pleadings; failure to frame points post-remand renders judgment perverse, requiring fresh remand to firs....
The Second Appellate Court cannot substitute findings of the lower courts without properly framed issues, emphasizing the need for procedural adherence in legal determinations.
The First Appellate Court must comply with procedural requirements and evaluate evidence from both parties; failure to do so renders its findings perverse.
The plaintiff's entitlement to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act was established, and the plea of limitation and acquiescence raised by the defendants was rejected by the court.
The court affirmed the Plaintiffs' easementary rights based on historical use and legal documentation, emphasizing the significance of such rights in property law.
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed in a second appeal unless a substantial question of law arises, which was not applicable 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
