N.S. Subbanarasimha Sastry (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. N. Kamalamma (Dead) Through L.R. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. in ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. deceased aged 43 years at time of accident and was hawker. multiplier of 10 and rate of interest @ 6% p.a. would be appropriate and not multiplier of 15 and interest rate @ 9% p.a. fixed by high court. compensation was determined at rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. .....has failed to prove landlord-tenant relationship between her and the non-petitioner (appellant herein). the revision filed by the respondent under section 50 of the act was dismissed by first additional district judge, tumkur and the finding recorded by the principal munsiff on the issue of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties was confirmed. however, the high court allowed the second revision preferred by the respondent and ordered eviction of the appellants herein. the review petition filed by the appellants was dismissed by the high court. hence, these appeals by special leave.3. a reading of the impugned order along with those passed by the principal munsiff and first additional district judge shows that while the trial court and first revisional court, after an in-depth analysis of oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties recorded concurrent finding that the original petitioner has failed to prove landlord-tenant relationship between her and the non-petitioner, the high court reversed the same without even recording a finding that the conclusions reached by the courts below are perversed. this being the position, the order in challenge is liable to.....