Sharma, J.—These are two appeals by the plaintiffs, one by Kedarnath plaintiff and other by Kanhaiyalal plaintiff against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jaipur District.

2. These two plaintiffs filed two separate suits and a third suit of similar nature was brought by one Rameshwar In all the three suits Brahmanand respondent was the sole defendant and they were for the recovery of damages for malicious prosecution and were brought in consequence of the acquittal of the plaintiffs by the Court of Sessions, Jaipur District in a case under secs. 454 and 38 of the Jaipur Penal Code. The criminal proceedings were started on the report of the defendant respondent Brahmanand who alleged that in his absence the plaintiffs along with a few others had broken open the lock of the shop in the tenancy of the defendant and had taken away certain movable property without his consent which had been locked up inside the shop by the defendant. The plaintiffs case was that they never broke upon the lock of the defendant but that although he had occupied the shop as a tenant of Thakur Kalyanji of which the parties were Pujaris, yet he had vacated it on the insistence

Click Here to Read the rest of this document