Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Fischer Vs. Bapu and anr.

Fischer vs Bapu and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 03, 1902
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/773614

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Fischer

Respondent

Bapu and anr.

Legal References

Reported In
(1902)12MLJ99

Excerpt

- 1. we find that both the subordinate judge and the district judge on appeal, have founded their judgments, to a very great extent, on facts observed by them when making a local inspection of certain places and on impressions conveyed to their minds by what they observed on such inspections. these notes, which are in considerable detail are, set out in pages 21 to 25 of the printed papers. we must hold that the course thus adopted by the, judges was most irregular and that the judgments now before us are in certain material points based on what was in no sense legal evidence. we have no option, therefore, but to set aside the decisions of both the lower courts and remand the suit to the subordinate judge of madura (west.) for re-trial on the evidence already on record and such additional evidence as ho may consider it advisable to allow either party to adduce. the notes of inspection of the judges already alluded to must be expunged from the record, and the. subordinate judge in re-trying the case must not take into consideration either the judgment of his predecessor or his own previous finding on an issue referred to him by the appellate court or the judgment of the appellate court.2. costs will abide and follow the result.

Full Judgment

1. We find that both the Subordinate Judge and the District Judge on appeal, have founded their judgments, to a very great extent, on facts observed by them when making a local inspection of certain places and on impressions conveyed to their minds by what they observed on such inspections. These notes, which are in considerable detail are, set out in pages 21 to 25 of the printed papers. We must hold that the course thus adopted by the, judges was most irregular and that the judgments now before us are in certain material points based on what was in no sense legal evidence. We have no option, therefore, but to set aside the decisions of both the lower Courts and remand the suit to the Subordinate Judge of Madura (West.) for re-trial on the evidence already on record and such additional evidence as ho may consider it advisable to allow either party to adduce. The notes of inspection of the judges already alluded to must be expunged from the record, and the. Subordinate Judge in re-trying the case must not take into consideration either the judgment of his predecessor or his own previous finding on an issue referred to him by the appellate Court or the judgment of the appellate Court.

2. Costs will abide and follow the result.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial