CHINNARI VENKATA RAO Vs. JYOTHULA CHELLA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, in Appeal Suit No. 96 of 1960 reversing that of the District Munsif, Peddapuram, in O.S. No. 32 of 1959 and decreeing in part the plaintiff's suit for damages lor malicious prosecution, with costs throughout.

(2.) The plaintiffs' case was briefly as follows : The plaintiffs are brothers and are residents of the village of Madhavapuram. The first plaintiff is a respectable person holding several honorary office. The defendant is also a resident of the same village and is inimically disposed towards the plaintiffs. In a contest between hint and the first plaintiff for Presidentship of the Panchayat Board, the defendant was defeated and his request to make him Vicc-Presidcnt was turned down by the first plaintiff. He, therefore, bore ill-will towards the first plaintiff. The defendant filed a criminal case, C.C. No. 724 of 1957 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Pithapuram, against the plaintiffs and eleven other alleging that the farm-servant of the first plaintiff had made two ventsj while there used to be only one vent in the bund between the land of the defendant and that of the first plaintiff with the result that the defendant's land had been flooded. When the defendant brought the elders or the village to the field to show them how the first plaintiff had acted high-handedly, the second plaintiff, at the instigation of the first plaintiff, pushed the defendant aside and the 2nd plaintiff and eleven others attempted to beat the defendant with sticks. The elders intervened and prevented further trouble. Subsequently, the defendant filed a complaint under sections 147, 427 and 352, Indian Penal Code, before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Pithapuram. After a protracted trial the case, however, ended in acquittal.

(3.) Thereafter the plaintiffs brought the present action alleging that the defendant had launched a prosecution against the plaintiffs maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause and claimed damages for loss of prestige and reputation in a sum of Rs. 1,450 and for the expenses of the criminal case of Rs. 550. The defendant resisted the suit asserting that it was a fact that the plaintiffs and their men had made two vents in the bund separating the lands and inundated the entire field of the defendant, and when the defendant tried to close the vents he was assaulted by the second plaintiff and others at the instigation of the first plaintiff, and that the allegations in the criminal complaint were not without reasonable and probable cause, nor did the defendant bear any malice towards the plaintiffs or their men.