Headline
The High Court cannot re appreciate evidence unless jurisdiction is exceeded held by the Supreme Court of India.
Summary
The Supreme Court held that under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution the High Court , cannot reappreciate evidence unless the authorities were contrarily or beyond their power. The Apex Court restored the discovery of the lower authorities in a land dispute, setting aside the order of the High Court.
Key Facts
- Case Name: Ajay Singh v. Khacheru and Ors., SLP (Civil) Nos. 34407-34408 of 2013
- Judges Name: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice CT Ravikumar
- Dispute related to land (Khasra No. 103), claimed as “Johad (Pond)” by the appellant and “Oosar” by the respondent.
- Authorities discovered the land to be “Johad,” declining claims of valid patta and correcting revenue entries.
- The High Court reversed the findings without evidence of contrariness or unlawfulness, favoring the respondent.
Legal Insights
The Supreme Court of India reiterated that High Courts under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution cannot act as appellate authorities by reappreciating evidence unless findings are contrary . It stresses that orders like permanent injunctions must not be overturned informally .
Impact
The judgment shed light on the limited scope of Article 226 of the Indian Constitution , reinforcing respect for findings of lower authorities unless legally defective.
Why It Matters
The decision of the Supreme Court upholds judicial discipline, making sure that the High Courts do not exceed their supervisory jurisdiction, preserving the integrity of decisions of subordinate authorities’.
Source
