T V LAKSHMOJIRAO Vs. SOMAVARAPU VENKATAPPAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal (revision) by the first defendant the short point falls for consideration is whether he is responsible for the damages claimed by the plaintiff, the respondent herein for malicious prosecution. 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 Narrukullapadu in Tiruvuru Taluk. There were disputes between him and the village karnam. He filed a suit against the Zamindar and the Slate 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 duties under Section 183 I. P. C. As a result of the complaint, a prosecution was launched against him before the sub-magistrate 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 and 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.