Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Musammat Dhuman Vs. Syed Abdullah Khan

Musammat Dhuman vs Syed Abdullah Khan

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 12, 1909
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/469039

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

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...

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Musammat Dhuman

Respondent

Syed Abdullah Khan

Legal References

Reported In
1Ind.Cas.760

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 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.

Full 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.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial