AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Phillips, J.—The plaintiff has brought these suits against the defendants for damages for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff and defendant 1
are brothers and owners of the North Vallur Zamindari in respect of which defendant 1 had filed a partition suit which was going on at the time of
this suit, having bean filed in 19 L9. The other defendants are the tenants of the estate who filed complaints against the plaintiff for illegal distraint of
their property, for non-payment of rent. In the course of the partition suit the plaintiff and defendant 1 entered into a compromise which provides
for a large number of matters and inter alia entrusts the management of the estate to the plaintiff. That provision is, however, qualified by Clause 5
which says that the plaintiff should be the manager of the estate until the business mentioned in para. 3 is completed. Para. 3 refers to effecting
division by metes and bounds and casting lots regarding the respective shares and after the shares are determined it-recites:
that within a month''s time after they are given thus, the defendant, namely, the present plaintiff, should select each lot he likes and take it without
raising any objection in the matter of such lots.
When, therefore, these lots had been east and a definite share allotted to each of the brothers, Clause 5 would apparently come into effect and
each of the brothers would manage his own share. It is admitted that so far as kamatam lands which were divided about March 1920 are
concerned this course was adopted and defendant 1 did take possession of his share, but the contention for the appellant-plaintiff is that in respect
of cultivated lands which were divided about August 1920, vide Ex. 28 (a), possession was not given to defendant 1, but romained with the
plaintiff. There is, however, considerable evidence to show that defendant 1 did actually take possession. On 31st August defendant 1 appointed
one Venkatappiah as the thanadar of his share and on 2nd September one Narasimham, who had been managing the property under the plaintiff
directed the amaldar for Maddur village, which fell to defendant l''s share, to hand over all cash, account books, etc. and we also have other
documents Exs 30, 30 (a) and 28 which tend to show defendant 1''s possession of his share.
In Ex. 10 the Tahsildar of Bezwada recognises defendant 1''s possession and the value of that document is sought to be discounted on the
ground that the document refers to a house site, but we have been shown no reason why any difference should have been made in handing over
kamatam lands and house sites as opposed to lands under cultivation by the tenants. Again Ex. 15 (a) is a petition by a contractor agreeing to give
up certain lands to defendant 1. Ex. 1 (a) is another document to show that defendant 1 was the person to whom the tenants applied for leases. All
these facts taken together show clearly that defendant 1 must have been in possession of his share and this view is considerably strengthened by
the fact that in the plaintiff''s accounts, Ex. 20, he transferred a sum in respect of defendant 1''s share from the joint account in September 1920,
and two months later he re-credited it to the joint account, apparently intending to put forward the claim that he was still the manager in possession
of the whole of the zamindari. In this state of affairs we have to consider whether defendant 2 in each of the four complaints filed his complaint
without reasonable and probable cause and maliciously. On 7th December 1920, the plaintiff and his men, ''including a constable, went to the
village of Chodavaram and demanded rent from ''these defendants. They say that they informed the plaintiff that they had already paid the rent to
defendant 1, and we have here receipts which show that ''payments were made in November 1920, Distraint was, however, effected and cattle
were taken away from the houses of these defendants, one of whom was the Village Munsif. They at once went to Bezwada and, whether before
or after consulting defendant 1 immaterial, filed com-plaints through a vakil one Kambhotlu, P.W. 11, before, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, These
complaints purport to be complaints of, an offence u/s 212, Estates Land Act, and the fact that in the complaints it is stated that the acts of the
accused would amount to robbery does not constitute a complaint u/s 392, I.P.C. This is clear from the fact that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at
once transferred the complaint as being one u/s 212, Estates Land Act, to a Magistrate who had no jurisdiction to try a case u/s 392, I.P.C. These
complaints were eventually dismissed as false.
The judgment in that case is filed here as Ex. G. The first thing that the plaintiff has to prove is that the complaints were filed without reasonable
and probable cause. If, as has been pointed above, defendant 1 was in possession of the lands cultivated by those tenants and had collected rent
from them, they would be perfectly justified in refusing to pay rent to the plaintiff and would naturally be annoyed at property being distrained in
respect of money they had already paid. It is contended that under the Estates Land Act, the plaintiff being the registered proprietor of the estate
was the person entitled to collect the rent and that, therefore, the tenants were bound to pay rent to him. Even if from a strictly legal point of view,
there was this liability to pay him, the fact that they had paid the rent to a person who was in possession of the lands as owner, with the permission
of the registered proprietor would certainly be sufficient justification for their taking action to prevent this being charged twice over and it cannot be
said in these circumstances that there was no reasonable and probable cause for the complaints filed, by them; ryots in a village cannot be held to
have complete legal knowledge and to be aware of the strictly legal rights of the plaintiff, if they really do exist in law.
It may also be mentioned that the plaintiff and defendant 1 were joint owners of the estate and under the compromise between them the plaintiff
was to be the sole manager, but in accordance with the terms of that compromise it would appear that that management was to continue only until
the shares were divided. In this view the question whether defendant 1 was the actual prosecutor in these complaints does not arise; for he Would
be entitled to the benefit of the same arguments as have been put forward for the ryots, the other defendants,
I have omitted to mention some evidence in support of defendant l''s possession, that is, the oral evidence of P.Ws. 3, 5, 6, 8 and 13 of whom
P.W. 6 actually admits the collection of rents by Venkatappiah, the thanadar, appointed by defendant 1 to manage his lands including the plaint
lands.
Taking therefore the evidence as a whole it is clear that the complainants in the criminal cases had justification in filing the complaints and no
malice could be inferred merely from the fact that such complaints were made. There is no other evidence of malice on the part of defendant 2 in
each of the suits, and, although admittedly the plaintiff and defendant 1 are bitter enemies, that alone would not make defendant 1 liable.
A further argument has been put forward for the respondent which is dealt with by the Subordinate Judge, namely, that the prosecution being
one for an offence under the Estates Land Act an action for damages for malicious prosecution would not lie. A decision to this effect is that of
Napier, J.; in P.V. Sriramulu Naidu Vs. Kolandaivelu Mudali, and it is to a certain extent supported by the other learned Judge Seshagiri Iyer who,
however, concedes that in certain circumstances it might be possible to prove a claim for malicious prosecution under the Cattle Trespass Act.
Here the facts are very similar and it will certainly be very difficult to prove in a case of this sort that substantial damages could have been sustained
The offence complained of contains no moral turpitude and no special damages have been alleged.
For all these reasons, I think the Subordinate Judge is right in his decision and dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal No. 71 of 24 abates as against defendant 2, the tenant, who is dead.
One set of costs in"" Appeal No. 71 of 24 and two sets of costs in all the other appeals.
Odgers, J.
I agree and I shall add a few words more. In deciding these appeals, sitting as we are as a jury, we have got to take, if we can, the common
sense view which the ordinary man in the street would take with regard to the occurrence on 7th December 1920. Now it has been strenuously
argued that the complaint is under the Indian Penal Code as well as under the provisions of Section 212, Estates Land Act. The complaint is
headed u/s 212, Estates Land Act, but it concludes with the following words:
the illegal acts committed by the accused are an offence u/s 212, Estates Land Act, and amount to robbary under the Indian Penal Code.
That has been characterized by the learned Subordinate Judge as a pleader''s gloss and it has been strenuously argued by Mr. Ramadoss for
the appellant that looking at the complaint generally we must take it that it alleges an offence under the Indian Penal Code. I cannot subscribe to
that view. The general allegation in the complaint is that it amounts to robbery under the Indian Penal Code specifying no section and it seems to
me that it is insufficient to make it a complaint under the Indian Penal Code. Therefore we have to see whether this complaint u/s 212, Estates
Land Act, was justified under the circumstances which have been set out in detail by my learned brother and which I do not propose to repeat. I
think it most likely that under the partition deed, Ex. C, defendant 1 was in possession of the village of Chodavaram at the time and the plaintiff had
then no power or authority over it whatever. But however that may be, we have got to see whether the tenants were justified in taking the view
they did of the plaintiff''s action and I think having regard to that action (that is to say, the demand of rent and when it was not paid, immediate
distraint of their property) they were justified in regarding that as a violation of their rights because as they said they had; already paid the rent to
defendant 1.
With regard to the question as to whether defendant 1 was really the prosecutor in these cases I do not think he was, in the view that I take
with regard to justification:
With regard to the law I am very doubtful as to whether a suit of this sort lies at all under the circumstances. It is said that the prosecution must
have been for an offence which would carry reprobation or impair the fair name of the parties. It is not enough if the proceedings are penal in form.
This view is supported, as my learned brother has pointed out, by the judgment of"" Napier, J., in Sriramulu Naidu v. Kolandavelu Mudali which
again relies on the decision in Wiffen v. Bailey [1915] 1 K.B. 600 where a very minute examination of the law has been undertaken by the learned
Lords Justices and they come to the conclusion that there is no such damage to fair name in a prosecution'' u/s 95, Public Health Act, 1875
instituted against a man who failed to re-paper the walls of his house when required to do so. Buckley, L. J., said the question was to see if there
was scandal or damage to fame, secondly, danger of imprisonment and thirdly damage to property. We are only concerned with the first of these
here. Scandal means something derogatory to the fair fame of the person damaged and everything punishable by fine does not necessarily reflect
upon the fair fame of the person prosecuted. So we have to look at the charge itself and holding, as I do, that it is one u/s 212, Estates Land Act,,
merely it seems to me that this suit falls. under the category of cases referred by the learned Lords Justices and I am prepared to say that such an
action will not lie under the circumstances. Even if I am wrong as to that, I agree with my learned brother as to justification and therefore the
appeals must be dismissed, with costs.