{"id":333953,"date":"2024-10-27T11:00:03","date_gmt":"2024-10-27T05:30:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=333953"},"modified":"2024-10-27T13:48:33","modified_gmt":"2024-10-27T08:18:33","slug":"sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/","title":{"rendered":"NRJ Series | SC normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact; phrases like \u201cconscience of Court being satisfied\u201d cannot convert question of fact into law [(1954) 1 SCC 688]"},"content":{"rendered":"<style>\n.animate-charcter{background-image: linear-gradient(-225deg, #231557 0%, #44107a 29%, #ff1361 67%, #fff800 100%); background-size: 200% auto; -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; animation: textclip 5s linear infinite;}\n@keyframes textclip {to {background-position: 200% center;}}\n<\/style>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Supreme Court:<\/span> In a case where the genuineness of a will was put in question, the three-Judges Bench of M.C. Mahajan, CJ., and <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Vivian Bose*<\/span> and Ghulam Hasan, JJ., noted that the will was scribed by one Krishanji Benadikar and was attested by six persons. Five of them were dead, but one survivor was called as a witness. The Supreme Court stated that these witnesses were believed by the lower courts and that ends the matter, as the Supreme Court did not normally interfere on the concurrent finds of fact.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court stated that the use of time-honoured phrases like &#8220;the conscience of the Court being satisfied&#8221; could not convert a question of fact into one of law. The phrase was only a rule of prudence and was nothing more than a picturesque way of saying that when the legal heirs to property were being divested in whole, or in part, of their inheritance by a man who was no longer available for examination as a witness great caution should be employed before upholding such an act. However, despite all this the question remained one of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the present appeal.<\/p>\n<h3>Background<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In the present case, the property covered by the will was the one belonging to one Yeshwantrao, who died on 28-04-1918. The respondents, who were the nephews of one Yeshwantrao, stated that the one Yeshwantrao made a will on 6-2-1918, leaving this property to them. One Yeshwantrao left behind his 2 widows and one of the widows had adopted a son.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The respondents had challenged the adoption of a son on the ground that the widows were expressly prohibited from adopting, and such prohibition was provided in the will. Both, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court held that the will was proved and because of that they held that the adoption was invalid. It was held that as the will expressly prohibited any adoption, and the Courts had agreed in holding that the widows knew of the will and the prohibition. Thus, the present appeal was filed by the appellants.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The appellant contended that though the will was said to have been made in 1918, its existence was not disclosed till 1944, shortly after the adoption also. Further, the will was said to have been handed over to one Dadu Sakharam Patil, who was only 16 or 17 years old at the time. In addition, the one Dadu Sakharam Patil was a brother of one of the widows, who was disinherited by the will. The counsel of the appellant stated that all this was most unlikely and, added to that, the suppression of the will for 28 years was so suspicious that no court&#8217;s conscience could, or ought to, be satisfied.<\/p>\n<h3>Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court stated it was not able to agree with the appellants. The use of time-honoured phrases like &#8220;the conscience of the Court being satisfied&#8221; could not convert a question of fact into one of law. The phrase was only a rule of prudence and was nothing more than a picturesque way of saying that when the legal heirs to property were being divested in whole, or in part, of their inheritance by a man who was no longer available for examination as a witness great caution should be employed before upholding such an act. However, despite all this the question remained one of fact.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Supreme Court noted that the will was scribed by one Krishanji Benadikar and was attested by six persons. Five of them were dead, but one survivor was called as a witness. The Supreme Court stated that these witnesses were believed and that ends the matter, as it did not normally interfere on the concurrent finds of fact.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Supreme Court stated that the High Court had considered and weighed all the objections and one strong point was made against the appellants in both the lower courts was that, according to their story, the will was fabricated in 1943 to prevent the adoption. However, the five attesting witnesses who were dead, died long before 1943 and no attempt was made to show that any of their signatures was a forgery. On the other hand, there was much evidence to show that the signatures were genuine. Thus, that was conclusive to prove that the will could not have been forged in 1943.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Supreme Court observed that the lower courts had also considered the long silence of twenty-eight years and the answer that appealed to them was that there was no need to produce the will, as no one ever thought that the widows would act contrary to its directions. Under the will, they had to manage the property during their lives, and they were doing so in much the same way as they would have done had there been an intestacy. Further, there was mutual confidence between the respondents and the widows and there was neither conflict nor friction till the adoption; they all lived harmoniously together.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Supreme Court noted the appellant&#8217;s argument that Yeshwant would hardly have entrusted the custody of the will to Dadu Sakharam Patil, a boy of only sixteen, was met in the lower courts by finding that Dadu was in fact twenty-four years old at the time and that he was the natural person to give the will to as he was with Yeshwant in his last illness and as his sister was to have management of the property along with her co-widow during their lives.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Supreme Court stated that the question of adoption was bound with that of the will, for the prohibition was contained in the will itself. The only query on this point was whether a prohibition, which was not communicated could affect an adoption. However, the lower Courts had already found that the widows knew the will and its contents. The evidence of Dadu Sakharam Patil, which was believed by both the lower courts, established that the widows did know about the prohibition and this also was a pure question of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the present appeal.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Mansinghrao Yeshwantrao Patil<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Ramchandra Govindrao Patil<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/P6AgGpyP\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(1954) 1 SCC 688<\/a>, decided on 12-04-1954<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Judgment authored by- Justice Vivian Bose<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For the Appellants:<\/span> K.R. Bengari and Sardar Bahadur, Advocates;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For the Respondents:<\/span> N.C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (G.A. Desai and Naunit Lal, Advocates, with him)<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 2%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">*Note:<\/span> Supreme Court&#8217;s interference in concurrent findings of fact<\/p>\n<p style=\"\">The Supreme Court in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Sudama Pandey<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of Bihar<\/span>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/Members\/NoteView.aspx?enc=KDIwMDIpIDEgU0NDIDY3OSYmJiYmNDAmJiYmJlNlYXJjaFBhZ2U=#JP0007\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(2002) 1 SCC 679<\/a>, held that:<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; margin-left: 18pt;\">&#8220;This Court under Article 136 of the Constitution seldom interferes with the factual findings recorded by two concurring courts but if this Court is satisfied that the High Court has committed a serious error of law and that there was substantial miscarriage of justice, this Court could interfere with the concurring findings of the High Court and that of the trial court. This Court also does not normally enter into a reappraisal or review of the evidence unless the assessment of the evidence by the High Court is vitiated by an error of law or procedure or there was misreading of evidence.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"\">Further, in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Raghunath<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of Haryana<\/span>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/Members\/NoteView.aspx?enc=KDIwMDMpIDEgU0NDIDM5OCYmJiYmNDAmJiYmJlNlYXJjaFBhZ2U=\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(2003) 1 SCC 398<\/a>, it was held that:<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; margin-left: 18pt;\">&#8220;While it is true that normally this Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances, where legal process is disregarded, or principles of natural justice are violated, or substantial and grave injustice has otherwise resulted.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">This report covers the Supreme Court&#8217;s Never Reported Judgment on, Supreme Court&#8217;s interference in concurrent findings of fact, dating back to the year 1954.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67520,"featured_media":333968,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,58675],"tags":[74540,73582,74538,74539,19471,67869,73117,72210,58925,73118,47202,30608,5363],"class_list":["post-333953","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-scc-never-reported-judgments-supreme-court","tag-adoption-of-son","tag-chief-justice-m-c-mahajan","tag-concurrent-findings-of-fact","tag-conscience-of-court","tag-constitution","tag-genuineness-of-will","tag-justice-ghulam-hasan","tag-justice-vivian-bose","tag-never-reported-judgment","tag-nrj-series","tag-question-of-fact","tag-question-of-law","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.4 (Yoast SEO v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Supreme Court&#039;s Never Reported Judgment on its interference in concurrent findings of fact | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact; phrases like \u201cconscience of Court being satisfied\u201d cannot convert question of fact into law.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"NRJ Series | SC normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact; phrases like \u201cconscience of Court being satisfied\u201d cannot convert question of fact into law [(1954) 1 SCC 688]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact; phrases like \u201cconscience of Court being satisfied\u201d cannot convert question of fact into law.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-10-27T05:30:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-10-27T08:18:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Supreme-Courts-interference-in-concurrent-findings-of-fact.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"NRJ Series | SC normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact; phrases like \u201cconscience of Court being satisfied\u201d cannot convert question of fact into law [(1954) 1 SCC 688]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/27\\\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/27\\\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Arushi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\"},\"headline\":\"NRJ Series | SC normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact; phrases like \u201cconscience of Court being satisfied\u201d cannot convert question of fact into law [(1954) 1 SCC 688]\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-10-27T05:30:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-10-27T08:18:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/27\\\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1269,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/27\\\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/Supreme-Courts-interference-in-concurrent-findings-of-fact.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"adoption of son\",\"Chief Justice M.C. Mahajan\",\"concurrent findings of fact\",\"conscience of Court\",\"constitution\",\"genuineness of Will\",\"Justice Ghulam Hasan\",\"Justice Vivian Bose\",\"never reported judgment\",\"NRJ Series\",\"question of fact\",\"question of law\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Cases Reported\",\"Never Reported Judgments\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/27\\\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/27\\\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/27\\\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on its interference in concurrent findings of fact | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/27\\\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/27\\\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/Supreme-Courts-interference-in-concurrent-findings-of-fact.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-10-27T05:30:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-10-27T08:18:33+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact; phrases like \u201cconscience of Court being satisfied\u201d cannot convert question of fact into law.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/27\\\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/27\\\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/27\\\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/Supreme-Courts-interference-in-concurrent-findings-of-fact.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/Supreme-Courts-interference-in-concurrent-findings-of-fact.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court's interference in concurrent findings of fact\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/27\\\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"NRJ Series | SC normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact; phrases like \u201cconscience of Court being satisfied\u201d cannot convert question of fact into law [(1954) 1 SCC 688]\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\",\"name\":\"Arushi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arushi\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/arushi\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on its interference in concurrent findings of fact | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact; phrases like \u201cconscience of Court being satisfied\u201d cannot convert question of fact into law.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"NRJ Series | SC normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact; phrases like \u201cconscience of Court being satisfied\u201d cannot convert question of fact into law [(1954) 1 SCC 688]","og_description":"Supreme Court normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact; phrases like \u201cconscience of Court being satisfied\u201d cannot convert question of fact into law.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-10-27T05:30:03+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-10-27T08:18:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Supreme-Courts-interference-in-concurrent-findings-of-fact.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arushi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"NRJ Series | SC normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact; phrases like \u201cconscience of Court being satisfied\u201d cannot convert question of fact into law [(1954) 1 SCC 688]","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arushi","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/"},"author":{"name":"Arushi","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76"},"headline":"NRJ Series | SC normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact; phrases like \u201cconscience of Court being satisfied\u201d cannot convert question of fact into law [(1954) 1 SCC 688]","datePublished":"2024-10-27T05:30:03+00:00","dateModified":"2024-10-27T08:18:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/"},"wordCount":1269,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Supreme-Courts-interference-in-concurrent-findings-of-fact.webp","keywords":["adoption of son","Chief Justice M.C. Mahajan","concurrent findings of fact","conscience of Court","constitution","genuineness of Will","Justice Ghulam Hasan","Justice Vivian Bose","never reported judgment","NRJ Series","question of fact","question of law","Supreme Court"],"articleSection":["Cases Reported","Never Reported Judgments"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/","name":"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on its interference in concurrent findings of fact | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Supreme-Courts-interference-in-concurrent-findings-of-fact.webp","datePublished":"2024-10-27T05:30:03+00:00","dateModified":"2024-10-27T08:18:33+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76"},"description":"Supreme Court normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact; phrases like \u201cconscience of Court being satisfied\u201d cannot convert question of fact into law.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Supreme-Courts-interference-in-concurrent-findings-of-fact.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Supreme-Courts-interference-in-concurrent-findings-of-fact.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Supreme Court's interference in concurrent findings of fact"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/27\/sc-does-not-interfere-concurrent-findings-of-fact-phrases-conscience-of-court-satisfied-cannot-convert-question-of-fact-to-law\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"NRJ Series | SC normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact; phrases like \u201cconscience of Court being satisfied\u201d cannot convert question of fact into law [(1954) 1 SCC 688]"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76","name":"Arushi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arushi"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Supreme-Courts-interference-in-concurrent-findings-of-fact.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":293277,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/27\/5-high-courts-to-get-new-chief-justices\/","url_meta":{"origin":333953,"position":0},"title":"5 High Courts to get new Chief Justices","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"KERALA HIGH COURT \u21aa Shri Justice Sarasa Venkatanarayana Bhatti, Judge, Kerala High Court, appointed as the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office. HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT \u21aa\u00a0Shri Justice Mamidanna Satya Ratna Sri Ramachandra Rao, Judge, Punjab & Haryana\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Appointments &amp; Transfers&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Appointments &amp; Transfers","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/appointments\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"new chief justices of high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/new-chief-justices-of-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/new-chief-justices-of-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/new-chief-justices-of-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/new-chief-justices-of-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":340851,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/09\/proposal-with-several-parts-must-be-accepted-rejected-entirely-accepting-one-part-will-be-counter-offer-not-contract\/","url_meta":{"origin":333953,"position":1},"title":"NRJ Series| Proposal with several parts must be accepted\/rejected in its entirety; acceptance of one part will at best be counter-offer and not a contract [(1954) 2 SCC 728]","author":"Arushi","date":"February 9, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on what constitutes as a contract, dating back to the year 1954.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Cases Reported&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"contract counter-offer acceptance","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/contract-counter-offer-acceptance.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/contract-counter-offer-acceptance.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/contract-counter-offer-acceptance.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/contract-counter-offer-acceptance.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276570,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/03\/preliminary-inquiry-under-section-11-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996\/","url_meta":{"origin":333953,"position":2},"title":"Preliminary Inquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 3, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Ayushi Raghuwanshi*","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image1-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image1-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image1-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":294487,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/13\/why-one-should-buy-ebc-bare-acts-hear-from-legal-luminaries\/","url_meta":{"origin":333953,"position":3},"title":"Why one should buy EBC Bare Acts? Hear from Legal Luminaries","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\"Eastern Book Company has been a pioneer in the field of law publication and legal reporting. I thank EBC for presenting me with those valuable exhaustive bare acts today.\" Shri Kiren Rijiju, Former Law Minister of Law and Justice \u201cEBC brings the same stamp of quality to its bare acts\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-128.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-128.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-128.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-128.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":275417,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/limitation-can-be-a-preliminary-issue-under-or-14-r-22b-cpc-if-the-question-can-be-decided-on-admitted-facts-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":333953,"position":4},"title":"Limitation can be a preliminary issue under Or. 14, R. 2(2)(b) CPC if the question can be decided on admitted facts: Supreme Court","author":"Editor","date":"October 11, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Supreme Court: Principal question before the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar*, JJ., for contemplation was whether the issue of limitation can be determined as a preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short \u2018CPC\u2019). The Supreme Court while\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-129-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-129-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-129-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-129-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-129-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":279539,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/13\/know-thy-newly-appointed-supreme-court-judge-justice-dipankar-datta\/","url_meta":{"origin":333953,"position":5},"title":"Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge- Justice Dipankar Datta","author":"Editor","date":"December 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, Justice Dipankar Datta, was sworn in as a Supreme Court Judge. His appointment now raises the judicial strength of the Supreme Court to 28 out of total strength of 34 judges","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Know thy Judge&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Know thy Judge","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/judges-information\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Justice Dipankar Datta","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-460.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/333953","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67520"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=333953"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/333953\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/333968"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=333953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=333953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=333953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}