High Courts(1870) 06 CAL CK 0003

Mussamat Mafizunnissa Bibi and Another vs The Collector of Tippera

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 29 June 1870

CASE NUMBER
Applications for Review Nos. 45 and 46 of 1870

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 169 words

Phear, J.—As my learned colleague intimated a desire to hear further argument from the petitioner, Baboo Anukul has addressed us on the merits of the application for review; and after hearing him upon the merits, I have only to remark that I have nothing further to add to the observations which I have already made. I am of opinion that the present application must be rejected with costs. Having now heard the pleader for the petitioner upon the merits of this application, I am of opinion that this suit was a suit for damages within the meaning of section 6, Act XI of 1865. The lower Appellate Court has distinctly found that the payment was not a voluntary payment; and as the facts on which this finding has been arrived at cannot be disputed, I have no doubt in my mind that this was a suit for damages. The fact that the plaint did not expressly state that the plaintiff was suing for damages does not make any difference.