ALAMKHAN MAHOMEDKHAN Vs. BANEMIYA RASUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to damages from the defendant-respondent for malicious prosecution. The appellants succeeded in the trial Court but failed in first appeal.

(2.) The parties are Muhammadans of Sangamner, a town divided into several quarters. The appellants are the Panchas for the quarter called Naikwadpura und they are in management of the burial) ground appertaining to the Municipality, to which they had, at the expense of the Muhammadans of that quarter, made an embankment costing Rs. 3,000. This they sought to realise by contributions from the Muhammadans of that quarter and had passed a resolution, which, how ever, is not in writing, to that efiect.

(3.) The respondent is a retired police prosecutor and had occupied a house outside that quarter but has lately purchased a house which is just within the quarter. On October 19, 1918, the respondent's infant died. He brought it for burial to the appellants ground but was informed that he could not bury it without payment of Rs. 25 as contribution towards the embankment. He declined to make any payment whatsoever. The quarrel lasted, for about five hours during which period the child lay unburied. Ultimately, the father had recourse to Magistrates and police. The appellants afterwards waived the amount and were willing to be content with any contribution, however, nominal, on the respondent's part. This too, the respondent declined to pay. Happily, a relative of his paid to the Panchas Re. 1-4-0 and the child was buried. Fifteen days afterwards, the respondent lodged a complaint under Secs.147, 297 and 385, Indian Penal Code, against the appellants, which ultimately resulted in their acquittal. Hence this suit.