RESEARCH

As per my research the questions which are raised in a court are of two types:

 Question of law
 Question of Fact

Question of law: The judiciary interprets the law, which is a matter of interpretation. For
instance, every nation has a variety of laws. The court determines which rules should be
applied and which should not. This is a legal issue. The issue of law arises when the judge
wants to interpret legislation. Law is, therefore, a matter of interpretation.

Question of Facts: When a legal question arises, the court determines the resolution with the
aid of regulations provided by various laws and legislations. When the court cannot do this, it
asks the higher courts for assistance. After being found guilty, the victim may occasionally
appeal to higher courts for a better verdict. However, only some issues can have a solution in
the law itself. The court then seeks assistance from facts or other evidence. The issue is
known as the factual question. The fact that a question of fact considers the evidence at hand
is a crucial feature of the concept. It gives no thought to the various types of opinions that are
offered. There is only the chance for the truth of the matter.

CASE LAWS

KARANPURA DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. V. K. NARAIN SINGH

In this case The Court refused to hear the subject of whether a transaction involving a licence
with an agreement to lease in the future was unlawful under Section 18 of the Bengal Court
of Wards Act, 1879 because the rates of Salami and Royalty fixed there were lower than
current market rates. The Court ruled that because the issue mentioned above was
fundamentally one of fact, it could not be raised for the first time in an appeal to the Supreme
Court.
JAGANNATH BEHERA VS. RAJA HARIHAR SINGH

The Supreme Court was not permitted to hear a case on whether there were any unique laws
or customs that applied to the combined territory for the first time, the Court said. The rule
that was established said that it would not be fair to allow a question to be agitated when the
answer to the question required proof in relation to the same.

VENKATARAMANA DEVARU V. STATE OF MYSORE

Since the abovementioned argument was not raised in the court filings, the court refused to
enable the question of whether the temple was a private one or not to be brought for the first
time. If the accusation has not been brought up before the lower courts, the accused cannot
bring it up for the first time before the Supreme Court that the Food Inspector lacked the
jurisdiction to file a complaint. The court determined that the trial court would have made the
same ruling if the accused had contested the Food Inspector's right to bring the complaint.
Essentially, this was a factual issue.