Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. In this suit, the plaintiff claims damages for malicious prosecution. His case is, that all the ten defendants along with one T. K. Prasada Rao, a Police Sub-Inspector (D. W. 5), conspired to bring against him a false charge of robbery, that he was thereupon prosecuted but discharged, that the proceedings against him were instituted maliciously and that he is therefore entitled to damages. The lower Court has found that defendant 1 was actively assisted by defendants 2, 4, 7 and 9 as well as Prasada Rao. In the plaint, it is stated, that owing to certain technical reasons, Prasada Rao was not made a party. Although the Judge finds that defendant 1 was aided by defendants 2, 4, 7 and 9, it is only against the first that he has awarded damages. The plaintiff has filed this appeal complaining that the sum of Rs. 500 granted to him as damages against defendant 1 is inadequate and that, on the finding of the lower Court, the other defendants mentioned above, should also have been made liable.

2. We may shortly state the facts as found by the lower Court, for, with its findings we agree. The plaintiff was the President of the Local Fund Union at Tatikonda, a