Skip to content


Ammani Ammal Vs. Sellayi Ammal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR6Mad426
AppellantAmmani Ammal
RespondentSellayi Ammal and ors.
DispositionAppeal Dismissesd
Cases ReferredLock v. Ashton
Excerpt:
damage - remoteness--disputed possession--magisterial order--non-cultivation--criminal procedure code, 1872, section 531. - charles a. turner, kt., c.j.1. as to damages, those incurred in the second year were not the probable result of the wrongful act of the respondents, but were the consequences of a judicial act proceeding from the magistrate alone : lock v. ashton 12 q.b. 871. they cannot then be recovered from the respondents. we overrule the objection that the respondents may also have suffered damages from the exaggerated claim made by the appellant, and that, consequently, they should not be required to pay damages to the appellant; for, if the respondents have suffered damage, they should bring a cross-suit.2. we dismiss the appeal and overrule the objection with costs.
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. As to damages, those incurred in the second year were not the probable result of the wrongful act of the respondents, but were the consequences of a judicial act proceeding from the Magistrate alone : Lock v. Ashton 12 Q.B. 871. They cannot then be recovered from the respondents. We overrule the objection that the respondents may also have suffered damages from the exaggerated claim made by the appellant, and that, consequently, they should not be required to pay damages to the appellant; for, if the respondents have suffered damage, they should bring a cross-suit.

2. We dismiss the appeal and overrule the objection with costs.


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