MADAMANCHI RAMAPPA & ANR. versus MUTHALUR BOJJAPPA

MADAMANCHI RAMAPPA & ANR. versus MUTHALUR BOJJAPPA

The High Court erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below based on sufficiency of evidence, exceeding the jurisdiction prescribed by section 100 Code of Civil Procedure; such interference is not permissible unless findings are based on no evidence or involve a substantial question of law.

Parties
Appellant: Madamanchi Ramappa; Appellant: Madamanchi Ramappa & Anr.; Respondent: Muthalur Bojjappa
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 March 1963
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Decree of High Court in Second Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Concurrent Findings of Fact, Powers of Second Appellate Court, Insufficiency of Evidence, Equity Vs Law, Special Leave, Section 100 CPC, Article 133(3) Constitution of India
Civil Procedure Concurrent Findings of Fact Powers of Second Appellate Court Insufficiency of Evidence Equity Vs Law Special Leave Section 100 CPC Article 133(3) Constitution of India

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madamanchi Ramappa

Appellant

Madamanchi Ramappa & Anr.

Appellant

Muthalur Bojjappa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Decree of High Court in Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court exceeded its powers under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by interfering with concurrent findings of fact of the courts below
  2. 2 Whether sufficiency or adequacy of evidence is a ground for interference in second appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below based on sufficiency of evidence, exceeding the jurisdiction prescribed by section 100 Code of Civil Procedure; such interference is not permissible unless findings are based on no evidence or involve a substantial question of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decree passed by High Court set aside
  • Decree of District Judge restored