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 of the plaintiffs and had taken out his movables from the shop and put them in a kothri of the temple.

3. The trial court believed the prosecution story and convicted the two plaintiffs Kanhaiyalal and Kedarnath and one Nathulal under secs. 454 and 380 J.P.C. and sentenced each of them to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- each. Rameshwar was convicted u/s 454 read with sec. 114 J. P. C. and sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-. One Jagdish was also prosecuted but he was acquitted.

4. The three plaintiffs and Nathulal went in appeal to the court of Sessions, Jaipur. Their appeal was successful and they were acquitted by the judgment, dated 15th February, 1947. A Government appeal was taken to the High Court but the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge was upheld by the judgment of the then High Court of Jaipur, dated 13th April, 1948.

5. After the above-mentioned judgment of the then Jaipur High Court the three plaintiffs instituted three separate suits or damages for malicious prosecution in the court of the Civil Judge, Sambhar on 22nd July, 1948. These suits were consolidated on the application of the three plaintiffs, dated 10th August, 1949 to which the defendant agreed and the evidence was recorded in the suit of Kanhaiyalal.

6. The plaintiffs case was that the report of Brahmanand defendant was false and criminal proceedings were started maliciously and without reasonable due probable cause. The three plaintiffs said that they were entitled to damages. In Kanhaiyalals suit a sum of Rs. 2500/- was claimed and in Kedar-naths suit also the same amount was claimed. It is not necessary to mention what was claimed by Rameshwar because he has not come in appeal to this court.

7. The case was afterwards transferred from the court of Civil Judge, Sambhar to the court of Civil Judge, Jaipur District who by his judgment dated 29th September, 1951 held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove want of reasonable and probable cause. On this ground he dismissed all the three suits. The two appellants before me went in appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge but the learned District Judge Jaipur District, who heard the two appeals, dismissed both of them by his judgment, dated 3lst may, 1952 and upheld the decree of the first court. These two appellants have filed these two separate appeals against the said judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jaipur District. The civil second appeal filed by Kanhaiyalal is No. 307 of 1952 and the appeal filed by Kedarnath is No. 325 of 1952. As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment of the learned District Judge, they are being disposed of by this single judgment.

8. I have heard Sri M. M. Tewari on behalf of the appellants and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document