https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183538 Article states that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory, not appellate, and that concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities are ordinarily immune from interference. Such findings may be disturbed only where there is jurisdictional error, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, reliance on inadmissible evidence, exclusion of admissible evidence, or a finding unsupported by any evidence. Applying that standard, the tenancy finding based on oral and documentary evidence, together with the concurrent revenue conclusions and absence of prejudice from the alleged irregularity, was treated as not perverse or legally vitiated. The High Court therefore properly declined to reopen the factual determination. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:51:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183538 Article states that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory, not appellate, and that concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities are ordinarily immune from interference. Such findings may be disturbed only where there is jurisdictional error, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, reliance on inadmissible evidence, exclusion of admissible evidence, or a finding unsupported by any evidence. Applying that standard, the tenancy finding based on oral and documentary evidence, together with the concurrent revenue conclusions and absence of prejudice from the alleged irregularity, was treated as not perverse or legally vitiated. The High Court therefore properly declined to reopen the factual determination. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Nov 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183538