The burden of proving absence of reasonable and probable cause for malicious prosecution lies on the plaintiff, and a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds is required to justify legal proceedings.

1. These appeals are filed by the respective appellants against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 313/1987 on the file of the Sub Court, Paravur. A.S. No. 215/1990 is preferred by the defendants in the suit and the other appeal is filed by the plaintiff therein. The plaintiff filed the suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The case of the plaintiff is that on 14.10.1982 the first defendant Sabha filed a false criminal complaint against the plaintiff before the Vadakkekara Police Station. On the basis of the complaint a false criminal case C.C. No. 553/1982 of Parur Judicial First Class Magistrate Court was charged against the plaintiff. The said false complaint was filed by the then Secretary of the Sabha one Narayanan in order to defame and cause injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the owner in possession of the property in Survey No. 105/9 of Kunjithaikara and the western side of that property belongs to the first defendant Sabha. On the western portion of the plaintiff's property near the boundary there is an old anjili tree belonging to the plaintiff. First defendant Sabha raised claim over that anjili tree. The plaintiff did not approve the claim of first defendant Sabha. So a false complaint was filed by the first defendant alleging that the plaintiff trespassed into the property of Sabha and stolen away the arecanut saplings in the property of the first defendant. After trial the plaintiff was acquitted on 30.9.1986. The first defendant Sabha and the then Secretary of the first defendant late Narayanan and defendants 6 to 9 were the office bearers of the Sabha at the relevant time. There was no justification or good faith in filing such a false complaint against the plaintiff. The plaintiff was having good reputation among the people of the locality. Due to criminal case, the plaintiff had to suffer a lot of mental agony and his good name was deteriorated. Defendants 2 to 5 are the present office bearers of the first defendant. No personal claim against defendants 2 to 5. Defendants 6 to 9 are personally liable for the relief claimed in the plaint. Narayanan, the Secretary of the Sabha expired before the filing of the suit. Plaintiff claims Rs. 5,000/- for defending the criminal case and Rs. 50,000/- as damages for loss of reputation and mental agony due to the malicious prosecution. But the claim is limited as Rs. 50,000/-.

2. Defendants 1 and 10 to 13 filed a joint written statement. It is admitted that the first defendant Sabha had filed a criminal complaint before the police. After the investigation charge was laid by the police and C.C. No. 553/1982 is registered against the plaintiff on the complaint filed by the first defendant. The complaint was filed on the bonafide belief that the plaintiff had committed the offence against the right of the -first defendant Sabha. The first defendant Sabha and his Managing Committee had no intention to injure the plaintiff. It is admitted that the property of the plaintiff is lying on the east of the first defendant's property. Anjili tree is standing in the property of Sabha and the plaintiff has no right over it. During the pendency of the criminal case, the plaintiff had filed O.S. No. 404/1982 claiming right over the anjili tree. In the said suit it was found that the plaintiff and the first defendant Sabha have equal right over the anjili tree and other trees standing in the boundary.

3. Against the judgment and decree, the first defendant Sabha and the plaintiff filed appeals and both the appeals were ended in dismissal. The criminal case was filed on reasonable grounds. Due to the filing of the criminal case, the reputation of the plaintiff was not lost. Defendants 6 to 9 are unnecessary parties to the suit. The plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the court below raised nine issues. The evidence in the case consists of oral testimony of pws.1 to 10, Dws.1 and 2 and Exts