Skip to content


Syed Abdullah Khan Vs. Musammat Dhuman - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1909)ILR31All333
AppellantSyed Abdullah Khan
RespondentMusammat Dhuman
Excerpt:
.....board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised.....john stanley, kt., c.j. and banerji, j.1. this appeal arises out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. it appears that the appellant filed a complaint against the respondent charging him with having stolen the ornaments which were on the person of a girl named shirin jan who eloped with the son of the respondent. she also complained that the plaintiff had wrongfully confined that girl and a maid-servant and she applied for the search of the plaintiff's house which was accordingly searched. the complaint was found by the criminal court to be unfounded and was dismissed. in this case the plaintiff sought to recover rs. 500 as damages for loss of reputation and rs. 499 as damages for mental and physical suffering. the court of first instance made a decree in the plaintiff's favour.....
Judgment:

John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. It appears that the appellant filed a complaint against the respondent charging him with having stolen the ornaments which were on the person of a girl named Shirin Jan who eloped with the son of the respondent. She also complained that the plaintiff had wrongfully confined that girl and a maid-servant and she applied for the search of the plaintiff's house which was accordingly searched. The complaint was found by the criminal court to be unfounded and was dismissed. In this case the plaintiff sought to recover Rs. 500 as damages for loss of reputation and Rs. 499 as damages for mental and physical suffering. The Court of first instance made a decree in the plaintiff's favour for Rs. 700 and this decree has been affirmed by the lower appellate court. Both the courts have found that the complaint made by the appellant, which in her defence to the present suit she asserted to be true, was false and malicious and without reasonable and probable cause. That finding is based upon legal evidence and we are not satisfied that it is erroneous. The only question which remains therefore is that of damages If we had to decide that question ourselves, we should certainly hold that the amount awarded was excessive, but it has been held by the Calcutta High Court in Banee Madhab Chatterjee v. Bhola Nath Banerjee (1868) 10 W.R. 164 and Jageawar Sarma v. Dinaram Sarma (1898) 3 C.L.J. 340 that the question of the amount of damages is a question of fact and it is not open to the High Court to interfere in second appeal upon such a question. We are not prepared to dissent from the view held in those cases, and accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //