Skip to content


Musammat Dhuman Vs. Syed Abdullah Khan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1Ind.Cas.760
AppellantMusammat Dhuman
RespondentSyed Abdullah Khan
Excerpt:
appeal, second - practice--amount of damages for malicious prosecution--question of fact. - - 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. that finding is based upon legal evidence and we are not satisfied that it is erroneous.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.....
Judgment:

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 Madhub Chatterjee v. Bholanath Banerjee 10 W.R. 164 and Jogeswer Sarma v. Dinaram Sarma 3 C.L.J. 140 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 //