Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This second appeal arises from a suit for damages for malicious pro. sedition. The case for the plaintiff is that defendant 1 owned certain lands attached to Novelock Bhagayet near Thengal village, that defendant 1 authorized defendant 2 to institute a criminal complaint and defendant 2 filed the complaint, 0. C. No. 548 of 1926, on the file of the Wallajah Sub-Magistrates Court against the plaintiff and others charging them with offences under Sections 147 and 430, I.P.C, alleging that on or about 11th November 1926 forty people, including the plaintiff (who was at that time supposed to be acting on behalf of Kalyani Ammal), ryots of Thengal village, gathered together and prevented the men of defendant 1 from taking water in the Thengal Kasam which they are entitled to do, by removing or attempting to remove a dam which was put up by the men of defendant 1, that that complaint was thrown out as false, that defendant 1 was the real prosecutor in the case, and defendant 2 filed the complaint only on behalf of defendant 1, that the complaint was a malicious one and that therefore the plaintiff is entitled to damages for malicious prosecution. The main