GOVINDARAJU versus MARIAMMAN

GOVINDARAJU versus MARIAMMAN

High Court erred in reversing findings of fact recorded by courts below without determining substantial questions of law. Jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law arising from sustainable findings and pleadings; findings of fact by courts below were not shown to be perverse, thus cannot be disturbed.

Parties
Appellant: Govindaraju; Respondent: Mariamman; Respondent: K.B. Sandeep
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court by Special Leave
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Hindu Succession Act, Second Appeal Jurisdiction, Title to Property

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Govindaraju

Appellant

Mariamman

Respondent

K.B. Sandeep

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court by Special Leave

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in reversing findings of fact of courts below without deciding substantial questions of law
  2. 2 Whether the vendor/respondent had conveyable title to suit property under Hindu Succession Act
  3. 3 Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 100 CPC in second appeal

Ratio Decidendi

High Court erred in reversing findings of fact recorded by courts below without determining substantial questions of law. Jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law arising from sustainable findings and pleadings; findings of fact by courts below were not shown to be perverse, thus cannot be disturbed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of High Court is set aside.
  • Judgment and decree of Trial Court and First Appellate Court is restored.