SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1921 Supreme(All) 158

KANHAIYA LAL, LINDSAY, TUDBALL
Mohamed Ghazanfar Ullah – Appellant
Versus
Babu Lal – Respondent


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 At a mitter of tab, the aforesaid Act has been repealed and is no longer in force. It was repealed by the Municipalities Act of 1916, vide Schedule IX of that Act.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 ur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top