<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1997 (2) TMI 538 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168387</link>
    <description>A second appeal under Section 100 CPC can be entertained only when it involves a substantial question of law, and the High Court cannot reappreciate concurrent findings of fact as if hearing a first appeal. A new plea, including irrevocable licence under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act, cannot be raised for the first time in second appeal when it was absent from the pleadings and unsupported by evidence. The text also states that equitable relief on justice, equity and good conscience is unavailable where the statutory provision does not apply and the party lacks clean hands. On this reasoning, interference with concurrent findings was unsustainable and the decree for khas possession was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:16:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376949" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 538 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168387</link>
      <description>A second appeal under Section 100 CPC can be entertained only when it involves a substantial question of law, and the High Court cannot reappreciate concurrent findings of fact as if hearing a first appeal. A new plea, including irrevocable licence under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act, cannot be raised for the first time in second appeal when it was absent from the pleadings and unsupported by evidence. The text also states that equitable relief on justice, equity and good conscience is unavailable where the statutory provision does not apply and the party lacks clean hands. On this reasoning, interference with concurrent findings was unsustainable and the decree for khas possession was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168387</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>