This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution by the defeated plaintiff in both the lower Courts.

The respondents-defendants are respectively the Municipal Council, Palghat, the Commissioner of that municipality during the years 1943 to 1946 and a neighbour of the plaintiff. The learned District Munsif as well as the learned Subordinate Judge held that though the plaintiff was acquitted in the criminal proceedings the prosecution was not without reasonable and probable cause and was not actuated by any malice and also that the suit against the Commissioner was bad for want of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff has come up in Second Appeal against the decision of the lower appellate Court.

Both the plaintiff and the third defendant are owners of neighbouring compounds in each of which is situated a house with appurtenant gardens containing fruit trees and other trees. The plaintiff became the owner of one of the properties in 1937 whereas the third defendant purchased the other property in 1944. After his purchase the third defendant made certain improvements and extended the compound wall whereupon the plainti