The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of attachment before judgment, the plaintiff is entitled to damages if the defendant acted with malice and without reasonable and probable cause for applying for attachment.

1. The suit in this ease was for damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the defendant causing his properties to be attached before judgment in a suit instituted by the defendant against the plaintiff (Original Suit No. 6 of 1906 in the: District Court of Coimbatore). The defendant along with his plaint in Original Suit No. 6 of 1906 put in an application for attachment of all the properties of the plaintiff. The suit was for a sum of Rs. 6,000 on a promissory note executed by the present plaintiff in favour of the defendants brother. The properties attached were according to the District Munsifs finding in this case worth at least Rs. 60.000 and on the defendants own admission their value was not less than Rs. 30,000. The defendant stated in support of his application for attachment that the plaintiff had alienated some of his properties and was about to alienate his other properties in order to defeat the execution of any decree the defendant might obtain against him. He obtained an interim order of attachment, but it was set aside on the plaintiffs! application, the Court holding that there was no ground for the application for attachment, The defendant in his written statement alleged "that the plaintiff had plenty of debts and warrants against him, and getting afraid at the action of the plaintiff, who, without paying the defendants debt, mortgaged properties for Rs. 15.000 to his elder brother and executed some other documents in favour of others, the defendant issued a notice for the discharge of his debt; but it has not been discharged. "He than proceeded to state that his debt was not discharged by the plaintiff for two months after he obtained the decree. All the defendants allegations about the plaintiffs indebtedness and alienations have been found to be untrue, except that the plain tiff, had executed a mortgage for Rs, 15,000 in favour of his brother. The District Munsif found that the defendant had absolutely no grounds to believe that the plaintiff intended to defeat him or any other creditor. He also found that the defendant had no reasonable grounds for believing his allegations. He then observes that "unless the defendant had some object (which from his conduct appears to have been sinister and indirect) in view, he could not have applied for attachment; of all the plaintiffs properties worth about Rs. 75,000 at the least for his debt of Rs. 5,000 and odd. "He also says that the defendant had no information before putting in his application for attachment of any intention on the plaintiffs part to make alienations or of his being indebted be any one except his brother. He found also that the plaintiff must have been put to great mental suffering and apparently credited the plaintiffs statement that he suffered in reputation. He allowed Rs. 500 as damages. On appeal the Subordinate Judge concurred in the Munsifs finding that there was no reasonable and probable cause for the defendants application, though the language used by him is not quite happy. With regard to the defendants motive again, his finding is not as precise as might be desired. He refers to the defendants allegations in his written statement already referred to and then states: "Prom these pleadings it appears to ma that the object of the present defendant in applying for an attachment before judgment in Original Suit No. 6 of 1906 was simply to have his money paid without delay and without enabling this plaintiff to take the objections he took in the previous suit, and thus to delay payment." The objection in the previous suit spoken of by the Subordinate Judge was that the defendants brother, to whom the promissory note sued on had been executed, assigned it to the defendant deliberately with a view to deprive the plaintiff of the opportunity of pleading a set-off of certain debts, which the defendants brother owed to him. The Subordinate Judge then says "plaintiff does not say in his evidence and has adduced no other proof of