Jurisdiction U/S 100 CPC is So Limited That Even Wrong Or Grossly Inexcusable Finding Of Fact Cannot Interfere With Bombay High Court

Case: Eknath Genu Pawar & ors V Dattu Santram Haral & ors
Coram: Justice Mangesh S. Patil
Case No.: SECOND APPEAL NO. 224 OF 1992 WITH CA/4837/2015 IN SA/224/1992
Court Observation:
“…It is quite apparent that the scope of the present inquiry is limited in ascertaining whether the observations and conclusions of the lower appellate court holding the appellant to have failed to prove the will are legally tenable or at least plausible on the basis of correct appreciation of the evidence.”
“…Needless to state that in view of the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, examination of at least one attesting witness is necessary for proof of a will. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act lays down what is meant by ‘attestation’…”
“…this court in the exercise of the powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot reappreciate the circumstances and evidence to reach a different conclusion.”

Jurisdiction U/S 100 CPC is So Limited That Even Wrong Or Grossly Inexcusable Finding Of Fact Cannot Interfere With Bombay High Court