YESHWANTRAO RANGANI KALAR Vs. NANDRAM GOVIND KALAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant who could non-suit the plaintiff in the trial Court had to suffer a decree in the first appellate Court and being aggrieved by the decree for grant of damages, has preferred this second appeal under section 100, Civil Procedure Code. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 18-3-1987 on the following substantial questions of law :

(2.) FACTS in a narrow compass are that the parties are neighbours and separated by a lane. The defendant sought permission to cut branches of a mango tree, which was causing shadow on his roof. It was granted by the Additional Collector vide order dated 20-7-1973 in Revenue Case No. 64-A/62/1970/71. According to the plaintiff he was Panch of the Gram Panchayat and was cultivator also. According to him, the defendant had lodged a complaint against his wife and as the plaintiff gave evidence against the defendant, the defendant was bearing enmity with him and to take revenge, lodged a false complaint at Police Station, Lanji, on 17-8-1973 against him, and his aged mother for commission of offences under sections 294 and 506, First Part, Indian Penal Code, alleging that the defendant was abused in a public place and was threatened on injury. On this complaint, the Police did not take any action, therefore, the defendant lodged a private complaint against the plaintiff. The said complaint was dismissed on 19-12-1975 and the plaintiff was honourably acquitted. The trial Court held that the complaint was false and was lodged with the intention to wreak vengeance because the plaintiff had given evidence against the defendant. On these allegations the plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 500/- as the amount spent by him in the litigation, Rs. 1,000/- for mental agony and defamation. He claimed a sum of Rs. 1,5007- in all. The defendant in his written statement contended that the plaintiff was not a respectable person, being a Court bird, he is quarrelsome and being a panch, he is trying to influence the public and the public at large is afraid of him. According to him, he had lodged the correct report and he does not carry any grudge against the plaintiff because he had given evidence in his wife's case. According to him, the complaint was true narration of facts and even if the plaintiff was acquitted, it does not provide a foundation for seeking damages. According to him, when permission to cut the branches of the mango tree was given to him by the Additional Collector, he was justified in his act and the plaintiff could not have abused him. According to him, the witnesses who had witnessed the incident turned hostile, therefore, he could not prove his case. As the parties joined issue, the learned trial Court recorded evidence and after hearing the parties, dismissed the suit. The learned first appellate Court after hearing the parties held that the respondent had maliciously prosecuted the appellant in the complaint case No. 157/74 without any reasonable and probable cause and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for damages, to the extent of Rs. 500/- only. Being dissatisfied with the decree granted by the first appellate Court, the defendant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) MRS. Daharia learned counsel for the appellant contends that the findings of the Court below that the defendant had no reasonable and probable cause is contrary to record and the settled legal position. She also submitted that in the absence of the reasons for the quantum of damages, Rs. 500/- could not have been awarded to the plaintiff. Shri Seth, on the other hand, submitted that the first appellate Court rightly held that the defendant had levelled false and malicious allegations and the defendant knew that the allegations were false or would have caused mental agony to the plaintiff. According to him, the suit was rightly decreed.