This second appeal under Section 100 CPC was dismissed. The High Court upheld concurrent findings of the lower courts that plaintiffs failed to prove the suit property was self-acquired. The Court held no substantial question of law arose as the findings were not perverse.
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Second Appeal No.75 of 2008
---- Appellants
Versus
---- Respondents -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellants : Mr.Raja Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Ms K.Tripti Rao, P.L. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
11/08/2016
2
“36. In Major Singh Vs. Rattan Singh2 it has been observed that when the Courts below had rejected and
1 (2012) 7 SCC 288
3
disbelieved the evidence on unacceptable grounds, it is the duty of the High Court to consider whether the reasons given by the Courts below are sustainable in law while hearing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
37. In Vidhyadhan Vs. Manikrao3 it has been ruled that the High Court in a second appeal should not disturb the concurrent findings of fact unless it is shown that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or that on the evidence on record no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion. We may note here that solely because another view is possible on the basis of the evidence, the High Court would not be entitled to exercise the jurisdictions under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This view of ours has been fortified by the decisions of this Court in Abdul Raheem V. Karnataka Electricity Board4 .
Sd/-
(Sanjay K Agrawal) Judge
B/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of fact by lower courts regarding failure to prove self-acquired property was perverse or based on no evidence.
Whether a substantial question of law arises from an admission made in a third party court to the High Court in a second appeal.
Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefits of an admission made before a Judicial Magistrate in second appeal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath AgrawalRelied on¶31
Vishwanath Agrawal, S/o Sitaram Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal
Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath AgrawalRelied on¶31
(2012) 7 SCC 288 · Who else cites this
Major Singh Vs. Rattan SinghExplained¶32
Major Singh Vs. Rattan Singh
Major Singh Vs. Rattan SinghExplained¶32
(1997) 3 SCC 546: AIR 1997 SC 1906 · Who else cites this
Vidhyadhan Vs. ManikraoExplained¶36
Vidhyadhan Vs. Manikrao
Abdul Raheem V. Karnataka Electricity BoardReferred¶37
Abdul Raheem V. Karnataka Electricity Board
Abdul Raheem V. Karnataka Electricity BoardReferred¶37
(1999) 3 SCC 573 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Veer Sai
Kunwar Sai
Patango
Sitaram
Ramchander
Godhan
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
