The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant/plaintiff was maliciously prosecuted and entitled to damages based on the admission by the defendant and the principles for damages for malicious prosecution.

The appellant in this appeal is the plaintiff in O.S.No.179 of 1991 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Cuddalore. The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.487 of 1994 against the respondent/defendant herein claiming a damages of Rs.16,000/- on account of loss of reputation due to malicious prosecution.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has contended that he owns about 15 acres of land and other house properties at Virupatchi and Sakkankudi and he was the President of Adoorkuppam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank and he was also a Director of Kanchananpettai Weavers Co-operative Society.

3. The respondent/defendant has preferred a complaint against the appellant/plaintiff and 9 others in Crime No.92 of 1991 before Kurinjipadi Police Station wherein it was alleged that the appellant due to previous enmity and as a consequence of Weavers Society election, came with 9 others on 33. 1991 at about 9.30 p.m. and formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with dangerous and lethal weapons and they attacked the respondent/defendant, his father and his senior paternal uncle and also committed mischief by setting fire to the dwelling house of respondent/defendants brothers wife and in the process, the respondent/defendant also got injured.

4.After investigation, Kurinjipadi Police Station has laid a charge sheet in P.R.C.No.5 of 1992. After committal to the Sessions Court, Cuddalore, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.282 of 1992.

5. During the course of trial in S.C.No.282 of 1992, the respondent/defendant was examined as P.W.1 and in the cross examination, he deposed as follows:

The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, had acquitted the appellant/plaintiff and 9 other accused on the ground that charges framed against accused have not been proved and that there are so many contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and therefore, the benefit of doubt shall enure in favour of the accused. The Court of Sessions, Cuddalore on the above said grounds, had acquitted all the accused vide Judgment dated 13.07.1993. It is an admitted fact that challenging the order of acquittal, no revision has been preferred by the respondent/defendant.

6.The suit in O.S.No.179 of 1996 was taken up for trial and on the side of the appellant/plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W.1 and one Murugavel was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked on behalf of the appellant/ plaintiff. On behalf of the respondent/defendant, no documents were marked and the defendant himself was examined as D.W.1.

7.The trial Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence more particularly the admission of D.W.1 before the Sessions Court, Cuddalore found that the criminal case has been falsely instituted against the plaintiff/appellant. As regards the quantum of damages to be paid on account of malicious prosecution, the trial Court found the averments made in the plaint are vague. However, it awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-as damages towards malicious prosecution.

8.The respondent/defendant aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, has preferred the appeal in A.S.No.10 of 1997 before the District Court, Cuddalore. The lower appellate Court has held that the admission on the part of defendant in Ex.A.2 was merely a suggestion and nod of head in token of an affirmation of the suggestion put to him and it cannot alone be the basis for deciding the complaint as a false one. In view of the said finding, the lower appellate Court has reversed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court and allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent/defendant and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.

9.At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed:-

"(i)Whether the admission by the defendant in Ex.A-2 is not enough to prove malice in launching a prosecution against the plaintiff/appellant as held by the first ap