Just a moment...
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, in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could interfere with the first appellate court's findings of fact without framing a substantial question of law on perversity or absence of evidence.
Analysis: The first appellate court is the final court of facts under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In second appeal, the High Court's jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law framed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Although factual findings may be assailed on grounds such as no evidence or perversity, that challenge itself must be made the subject of a framed substantial question of law. Here, no such question was framed against the finding that Lakshmi and Ramayee were one and the same person, and the High Court reappreciated evidence as if sitting in first appeal.
Conclusion: The High Court acted beyond the permissible scope of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and its interference with the first appellate court's findings could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, the High Court cannot disturb findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court unless a substantial question of law specifically covering perversity or absence of evidence is framed and decided.