Kosha Doshi | Symbiosis Law School, Pune | 21st March 2020<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Palaniammal vs Kamalakannan [Civil Appeal 17355\/2017]<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Facts:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The petitioner, wife and legal heir of Govindasamy who is the first cousin of Ramasamy Naicker. Whereas the defendant is the legal heir of Govindan. It had been preferred by the petitioner to set aside the judgment and decree of suction dated 26th<\/sup> September, 1955. This was in favor of Govindhan and it sought relief for possession of suit of property for a duration of 3 years. This auction took place on contest. The auction sale was not liable but the declaration dated 26th<\/sup>September, 1995 was in favor of defendant\u2019s father wholly. This was by way of trust for beneficial ownership of Govindasamy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Govindan\u2019s precedes were the only ostensible owner and the auction entitling Govindasamy would receive the profits till the delivery of the possession. The High court passed an order that Govindhan was the real purchaser and the lawful owner. Amongst these disputes the case majorly rested on appreciation of evidence in the higher and apex courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Issue:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Whether the issue is maintainable under Section 66 (1) of Code of Civil procedure, 1908 before its deletion on 19th<\/sup> May, 1988?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Judgment:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The plaintiff had failed to prove their case completely and the court observed that their existed no occasion for them to reconsider any aspect of the matter. There was no reason to interfere with the order of the First Appellant Court. As per Section 66 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 there is no situation in the case for the court to reassess or reappreciate the evidence appreciated in the First Appellant Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There had been enormous appreciation of evidence by the trial court. The bench hearing the case comprised of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha who stated that the Trial Court and the First Appellant Court declined to interfere with the judgment of auction holding it to be valid. Thereby the final conclusion stated was that the court need not interfere with the concurrent findings of the facts. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Kosha Doshi | Symbiosis Law School, Pune | 21st March 2020 Palaniammal vs Kamalakannan [Civil Appeal 17355\/2017] Facts: The petitioner, wife and legal heir of Govindasamy who is the first cousin of Ramasamy Naicker. Whereas the defendant is the legal heir of Govindan. It had been preferred by the petitioner to set aside the judgment […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":167,"featured_media":373,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[66,104,26],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n