VELAYUDHAN PILLAI Vs. GOPALA PANICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The courts below have concurrently decreed the suit and the defendant has therefore come up in appeal.

(2.) The facts are simple. The defendant took a mortgage Ext. I from the plaintiff on 5.3.1115 and gave a lease back to the plaintiff under Ext. II though not on the same day. More than a year afterwards, according to him, the defendant discovered that the plaintiff was not entitled to some of the survey numbers included in the mortgage deed and was soon afterwards threatened with prosecution by the real owner. Exchange of notices between the plaintiff and defendant thereupon followed, and though the plaintiff expressed willingness to correct the survey numbers he was dilatory about it. So the defendant after consulting a lawyer D.W. 2 filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff for cheating. The plaintiff was after some trial in the criminal case discharged and he subsequently filed this suit for damages for malicious prosecution.

(3.) The courts below, in very elaborate judgments, have discussed the evidence in the case and the law bearing on the matter and found in favour of the plaintiff on all the four ingredients requisite in cases of this type, viz., that there was a prosecution, that it ended in favour of the plaintiff, that there was no reasonable and probable cause for the defendant to prosecute the plaintiff and that the defendant was motivated by ill will (i.e.,) he bore malice in launching the proceedings and ultimately granted to the plaintiff damages though less than he had asked.