Lord Porter:-

This appeal by special leave from the High Court of Patna dated 25th January 1938, raises the question whether the appellants who were plaintiffs in the original suit are entitled to succeed in an action against the defendants for malicious prosecution. Plaintiff 1 is the Raja of Aul, once an independent tributary State in Orissa, but now an ordinary zemindari subject to the laws of British India. He is a Khetriya by caste. Appellant 2 is the son of the original plaintiff 2, Krishna Chandra Jagati, deceased, and has been duly substituted for him in the proceedings. Both the original plaintiffs 2 and 3 were servants of plaintiff 1. Respondents 1 and 2 are the sons and legal personal representatives of the original defendant 1, Bamdeb Das, alias Patnaik, who was the father of one Jugal Kishori Das and was related to one Harikrishna Mahanty, now deceased. Defendant 2 is a nephew of defendant 3, who was a cousin of Harikrishna Mahanty. These two defendants formed a joint Hindu family. The defendants and Harikrishna Mahanty were Karans by caste, a caste regarded as of inferior status to that of plaintiff 1. The original defendants are said to have prosecuted the original pl