Skip to content


Mohamed Ghazanfar Ullah Vs. Babu Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1922All477; 64Ind.Cas.93
AppellantMohamed Ghazanfar Ullah
RespondentBabu Lal and anr.
Excerpt:
u.p. municipalities act (ii of 1916), section 324 - suit against municipal contractor for damages by lessee of mandi, whether maintainable. - - this argument clearly has no force......a decision of the judge, small cause court, allahabad, the plaintiffs are the lessees of a certain mandi in allahabad town, the defendant is a person who took a contract from the municipal board of allahabad to build or repair a very small drain in this mandi and also to repair certain roads outside the mandi. he stacked upon the land of the mandi not only materials for the building of the drain but also materials for the repairing of the road outside. these materials were stacked for at least two months. the plaintiff sued him for damages for his unlawful act in that he stacked all these materials, that is, chiefly the materials for the repairing of the roads, on his land, and thereby prevented him from using it. the court below has decreed the claim.2. the point raised in this court.....
Judgment:

1. This is an application in revision from a decision of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Allahabad, The plaintiffs are the lessees of a certain Mandi in Allahabad Town, The defendant is a person who took a contract from the Municipal Board of Allahabad to build or repair a very small drain in this Mandi and also to repair certain roads outside the Mandi. He stacked upon the land of the Mandi not only materials for the building of the drain but also materials for the repairing of the road outside. These materials were stacked for at least two months. The plaintiff sued him for damages for his unlawful act in that he stacked all these materials, that is, chiefly the materials for the repairing of the roads, on his land, and thereby prevented him from using it. The Court below has decreed the claim.

2. The point raised in this Court was that the suit would not lie because Section 42 of the Sewerage and Drainage Act of 1894 applied and compensation could only be obtained in the manner laid down in that section. At a mitter of tab, the aforesaid Act has been repealed and is no longer in force. It was repealed by the Municipalities Act of 1916, vide Schedule IX of that Act. It is urged before us that Section 324 of the Municipalities Act would apply. This argument clearly has no force. This is not an act done by the Municipal Board or by any member or any officer or servant thereof, nor is it an act in regard to which the Municipalities Act lays down that compensation should be payable by the Municipal Board. There is no force whatsoever in the application. It is, therefore, dismissed with costs.


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