AZGAR BARID (D) BY LRS. versus MAZAMBI @ PYAREMABI AND OTHERS

AZGAR BARID (D) BY LRS. versus MAZAMBI @ PYAREMABI AND OTHERS

The High Court was justified in interfering with the First Appellate Court because the First Appellate Court had reversed trial court findings that were based on proper appreciation of voluminous oral and documentary evidence and instead reached conclusions based on conjecture and surmise; non-appealing plaintiffs may be granted relief on appeal under Order 41 Rule 4 read with Rule 33 and perversity in factual findings gives rise to a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.

Parties
Appellant Defendant No.1: AZGAR BARID (D) BY LRS.; Respondents Plaintiffs: MAZAMBI @ PYAREMABI AND OTHERS
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (second Appeal) / Appeal Against Judgment of the High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.160 of 1995 (civil Appeal No.249 of 2010)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Second Appeal, Appreciation of Evidence, Perverse Findings, Transposition of Parties in Partition Suits, Order 41 Rule 4 and Order 41 Rule 33 CPC, Section 100 CPC
Civil Procedure Partition (property Law) Evidence Second Appeal Appreciation of Evidence Perverse Findings Transposition of Parties in Partition Suits Order 41 Rule 4 and Order 41 Rule 33 CPC +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AZGAR BARID (D) BY LRS.

Appellant Defendant No.1

MAZAMBI @ PYAREMABI AND OTHERS

Respondents Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (second Appeal) / Appeal Against Judgment of the High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.160 of 1995 (civil Appeal No.249 of 2010)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff Nos.4 to 8 who did not appeal against the trial court could be granted relief in the second appeal
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was justified in framing questions of law that were said to be questions of fact
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to share when their ancestor predeceased the propositus

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court was justified in interfering with the First Appellate Court because the First Appellate Court had reversed trial court findings that were based on proper appreciation of voluminous oral and documentary evidence and instead reached conclusions based on conjecture and surmise; non-appealing plaintiffs may be granted relief on appeal under Order 41 Rule 4 read with Rule 33 and perversity in factual findings gives rise to a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.