Legal Reference Library

In Sk. Bhikan S/o Sk. Noor Mohd. Vs Mehamoodabee w/o Sk. Afzal & Ors, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when the Court is called upon to interpret the documents and examine its effect, it involves questions of law. It is, therefore, obligatory upon the High Court to decide such questions on merits. In this case, the High Court could do so after framing substantial questions of law as required under Section 100 of the Code. It was, however, not done.

The High Court of Kerala has held that a single judge, while referring a case to division bench, could only refer the entire case and he is not empowered to refer only some questions of law involved in that case and retain the rest. A bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice KP Jyothindranath held that while referring the case to the division bench, rights of parties or any other questions of law involved therein could not be the decided under the order of reference. Such a decision in the order of reference is not binding on the parties and the division bench can consider the entire matter, the bench held, referring to the decision of a full bench in Babu Premarajan v. Supdt. of Police [2000 (3) KLT 177] (F.B.)]. The bench observed this while considering a bunch of reference from single bench arising out of criminal revision petitions filed by convicts who faced prosecution and criminal miscellaneous cases filed by the accused who are facing prosecution, for offences unde...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 231 OF 2015 DAMODAR LAL ... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS SOHAN DEVI AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENT (S) The facts unfold the plight of a poor landlord languishing in courts for over fourty years. The case gets sadder when we note that appellant had been successful both in the trial court and the first appellate court and the saddest part is that the High Court in second appeal, went against him on a pure question of fact! Issue number-3 framed in Civil Regular Suit No. 191 of 1974 for eviction on the ground of unauthorised construction/material alteration, decided on 21.12.1989 in the Court of Munsiff, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, reads as follows: Whether the tenant has carried out permanent construction on the plot thereby causing a permanent change in the identity of the plot against the terms of the rent agreement? Having analysed and appreciated the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 and also DWs- 1 to 4, the trial court came to ...