In this appeal the appellant, who was the plaintiff’ in the suit, sought to recover damages on the ground that the defendants had maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause presented a petition in insolvency against him, as the result of which on 5th October, 1937, he was adjudicated insolvent. He says he was not able to obtain annulment of his adjudication until 21st February, 1944. Kunhi Raman, J., dismissed the suit holding in the first place that it was barred by limitation. He came also to the conclusion that want of reasonable and probable cause had not been satisfactorily proved. Even so he held that there was no evidence of malice and finally was of the opinion that the plaintiff on the evidence was entitled to no more than nominal damages.

The plaintiff has been pressed before us as a well-to-do man of the Chettiar community and of good character and reputation. It is stated that in a partition somewhere about 1933 between himself and his brothers he received as his share more than two lakhs of rupees. He took up residence in Madras and began speculating on the stock exchange. As he himself said in the course of the insolvency proceedings, his