RAJA BRAJA SUNDER DEB Vs. BAMDEB DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by special leave from the High Court of Patna dated January 25, 1938, raises the question whether the appellants who were plaintiffs in the original suit are entitled to succeed in an action against the defendants for malicious prosecution

(2.) PLAINTIFF No.1 is the Raja of Aul, once an independent tributary State in Orissa, but now an ordinary zemindari subject to the laws of British India. He is a Khetriya by caste. Appellant No.2 is the son of the original plaintiff No.2, Krishna Chandra Jagati, deceased, and has been duly substituted for him in the proceedings. Both the original plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 were servants of plaintiff No.1. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons and legal personal representatives of the original defendant No.1, Bamdeb Das, alias Patnaik, who was the father of one Jugal Kishore Das and was related to one Harikrishna Mahanty, now deceased. Defendant No.2 is a nephew of defendant No.3 who was a cousin of Harikrishna Mahanty. These two defendants formed a joint Hindu family. The defendants and Harikrishna Mahanty were Karans by caste, a caste regarded as of inferior status to that of plaintiff No.1.

(3.) THAT some such status as Chauki Bai may exist appears from a publication called Pachis Sawal, which contains twenty-five questions addressed to the Rajas and Chiefs of the Regulation and Tributary Mahals. by the Superintendent in 1814 and was published under the authority of Government.