Ammani Ammal Vs. Sellayi Ammal and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Civil |
| Chennai |
| Jul-17-1883 |
| Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and ;Muttusami Ayyar, J. |
| (1883)ILR6Mad426 |
| Ammani Ammal |
| Sellayi Ammal and ors. |
| Appeal Dismissesd |
| Lock v. Ashton
|
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.
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.