Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's finding that the mortgage deed was duly attested, on the basis of conflicting oral evidence.
Analysis: The governing principle is that where a finding turns on appreciation of oral testimony, the appellate court should be slow to disturb the trial court's conclusion, especially when the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses. Interference is warranted only if the evidence as a whole cannot reasonably support the finding, or if proved circumstances create a sufficient balance of improbability to displace it. On the evidence, the trial court's view that the deed was attested at the time of execution was consistent with the probabilities of the case and was supported by the record. The High Court's rejection of that finding rested on inadequate grounds and gave insufficient weight to the trial court's appreciation of the witnesses.
Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in reversing the finding on attestation; the trial court's finding stood restored, and the appellant succeeded on this issue.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court should not reverse a trial court's finding based on oral evidence unless the finding is unsupported by the evidence as a whole or is displaced by compelling improbabilities.