Beneficial ownership of a ship is not a question of fact alone. It is a mixed question of fact and law. In William v. Wilcox (1838) 8 Ad. & EL 331 it is held:
"It is an elementary rule in pleading that when a state of facts is relied, it is enough to allege it simply, without setting out the subordinate facts which are the means of proving it or the evidence sustaining the allegations."
149. The aforementioned dicta has been quoted with approval in Mohan Rawale v. Damodar Tatyaba, and Ors. MANU/SC/0637/1994 : (1994)2SCC392 .
So long as the claim discloses some cause of action or raises some questions fit to be decided by a Judge, the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out. The purported failure of the pleadings to disclose a cause of action is distinct from the absence of full particulars. [See Mohan Rawale (supra)]
157. Beneficial ownership is not a pure question of fact. It is a mixed question of law and fact. In that view of the matter it was not necessary for the Club to set out the subordinate facts which are means of proving it or the evidence sustaining the allegations.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 5665 and 5666 of 2002
Decided On: 20.11.2003
Liverpool and London S.P. and I Asson. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I and Anr.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
V.N. Khare, C.J. and S.B. Sinha, J.
Citation:(2004) 9 SCC 512.
Read full judgment here: Click here
"It is an elementary rule in pleading that when a state of facts is relied, it is enough to allege it simply, without setting out the subordinate facts which are the means of proving it or the evidence sustaining the allegations."
149. The aforementioned dicta has been quoted with approval in Mohan Rawale v. Damodar Tatyaba, and Ors. MANU/SC/0637/1994 : (1994)2SCC392 .
So long as the claim discloses some cause of action or raises some questions fit to be decided by a Judge, the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out. The purported failure of the pleadings to disclose a cause of action is distinct from the absence of full particulars. [See Mohan Rawale (supra)]
157. Beneficial ownership is not a pure question of fact. It is a mixed question of law and fact. In that view of the matter it was not necessary for the Club to set out the subordinate facts which are means of proving it or the evidence sustaining the allegations.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 5665 and 5666 of 2002
Decided On: 20.11.2003
Liverpool and London S.P. and I Asson. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I and Anr.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
V.N. Khare, C.J. and S.B. Sinha, J.
Citation:(2004) 9 SCC 512.
Read full judgment here: Click here
No comments:
Post a Comment