LAKSHMOJI RAO Vs. VTNKATAPPIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Second Appeal by the first defendant the short point that falls for consideration is whether he is responsible for the damages claimed by the plaintiff, the respondent herein, for ,malicipus presecution. The trial court held that the plaintiff respondent has failed to prove that the report given by the first defendant was without any reasonable and probable cause .or out of malice. Accordingly it dismissed the suit. The appellate court held that the first defendant launched the prosecution falsely and maliciously without any reasonable and probable cause and decreed the suit, In order to determine the point in question, I have to refer to the facts of the case.

(2.) The respondent is a ryot owning both inam and sen lands at Narukullapadu in Tiruvuru Taluq. There were disputes between him and the village karnam. He filed a suit against the Zamindar and the State and obtained a decree for grant of patta. The first defendant who is the revenue inspector and the second defendant who is the village munsif made demands for payment of the land revenue,and threatened to proceed against him personally, by attaching his movable property. Subsequently the second defendant prevailed upon the first defendant to make a report with false allegations to the Deputy Tahsildar of Vissannapet and to the Station House Officer of that place. Accordingly a complaint was made that he obstructed a public servant in the discharge of his duty under section 183 I.P.C. As a result of the complaint, a prosecution was launched against him before the SubMagistrate who remanded him to custody for eight days and thereafter he was released on bail. The prosecution ended in an acquittal. He suffered a great mental pain owing to the arrest and imprisonment ana had to spend large sums of money to defend himself. He therefore claims Rs 500/- by way of damages. In this action he has impleaded the Revenue Inspector the Village Munsif and the Collector as defendants 1 to 3 respectively :

(3.) The Village Munsif in his written statement has denied that he was instigated by the Karnam to make a false report and stated that the attachment was perfectly valid. He denied that he initiated the proceeding and that there was any cause of action against him.