R. RAMACHANDRAN A YYAR 10-08-1962 versus RAMALINGAM CHETTIAR

R. RAMACHANDRAN A YYAR 10-08-1962 versus RAMALINGAM CHETTIAR

The High Court was not justified in interfering with findings of fact by the first appellate court since there was no substantial error or defect in procedure; the questions involved were pure questions of fact and were properly assessed by the first appellate court. Mere non-discussion of every reason given by the trial court does not constitute procedural error under s. 100 CPC.

Parties
Appellant: R. Ramachandran Ayyar; Respondent: Ramalingam Chettiar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 August 1962
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against the Judgment and Decree of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No. 436 of 1953
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Second Appeals, Findings of Fact, Jurisdiction of High Court, Partnership, Release Deed, Adequacy of Consideration, Limitation
Civil Procedure Contract Law Second Appeals Findings of Fact Jurisdiction of High Court Partnership Release Deed Adequacy of Consideration +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. Ramachandran Ayyar

Appellant

Ramalingam Chettiar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against the Judgment and Decree of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No. 436 of 1953

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in second appeal with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court.
  2. 2 Whether the findings of the first appellate court involved any substantial error or defect in the procedure under s. 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court was not justified in interfering with findings of fact by the first appellate court since there was no substantial error or defect in procedure; the questions involved were pure questions of fact and were properly assessed by the first appellate court. Mere non-discussion of every reason given by the trial court does not constitute procedural error under s. 100 CPC.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decree of the High Court is set aside.
  • Decree of the first appellate court (District Court) restored.