Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.

1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against a reduction made by the District Judge in the amount of damages awarded to them by the Subordinate Judge in an action for damages for malicious prosecution and malicious house search. The correctness of the principle applied by the learned District Judge in reducing the amount is challenged by the appellants.

2. There is a memorandum of objections preferred by the first defendant to the effect that no damages ought to have been awarded at all and that, in any event, no damages could be allowed for the house search, as there is no such tort known to law.

3. Both the lower Courts have found that the prosecution and the search were malicious, that the plaintiffs are wealthy and respectable people and that the second plaintiff was a purdhanashin lady. The Subordinate Judge held that the first defendant moved the Magistrate for a search warrant and prosecuted the plaintiffs with intent to dishonour them and that he did so because of a longstanding enmity which impelled him to wreak his private vengeance. So he took the view that the case called for the award of exemplary damages, which he fi