In an action for malicious prosecution, the burden of proof to prove absence of reasonable and probable cause normally rests on the plaintiff, but there is a presumption in favor of the plaintiff when the accusation is in respect of an offence which the defendant claimed to have seen him commit and the trial ends in an acquittal on merits.

A. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants. Originally, the suit was instituted by 12 plaintiffs, but as plaintiff No. 5 died during the pendency of the suit, his name was expunged and the remaining 11 plaintiffs continued the suit.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS' case, in brief, is as follows: They are all members of the Brahmin nijjog whose office is situate on plot No. 738 adjoining a tea stall owned by defendant No. 1 on plot No. 737. Defendant No. 1 had cherished a grudge against them on their refusal to allow him some further space to expand his tea stall. During the night preceding 31-10-58, the roof of defendant No. 1's tea stall was burnt. On the morning of 31-10-1958 out of the grudge which he cherished against the plaintiffs, defendant no, 1 conspired with defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and lodged a F. I, E. making false accusations against the members of the Brahmin nijjog including the plaintiffs of having committed certain offences in relation to him and his property while he was rearranging his articles in the shop. As a result, some of the plaintiffs were arrested on 31-10-58, remained in custody till release on bail and others surrendered in court and got enlarged on bail. Ultimately, police submitted charge-sheet against the original plaintiffs nos. 1 to 10 for offences Under Sections 147, 452 and 149 I. P. C. After protracted trial, plaintiffs were acquitted on merits. Alleging that the prosecution was started without any reasonable and probable cause and out of malicious motives, plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to damages for malicious prosecution from the defendants. So far as the quantum is concerned, each of the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 1,000/- for loss of reputation and mental agony; Rs. 75/-each towards loss sustained by them in not being able to attend to their normal avocations; Rs. 1,800/- incurred as lawyer's fee in defending themselves in the criminal Court; Rs. 240/- as the amount paid to the Advocate's clerk, besides an amount of Rs. 60/alleged to have been spent in performing religious propitiation ceremonies for those who were released from custody on bail.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS deny the allegation of conspiracy to prosecute the plaintiffs and state that the allegations made in the F. I. R. are not false; that the same were not made without reasonable and probable cause; that the police were the real prosecutors and that the report was not lodged out of any malicious motives but with the object of vindicating their legal rights. According to them, defendant No. 1 purchased 0. 44 1/2 acre on the southern side of plot No. 737 from the Common manager of the Bhingarpur De-bottar estate with the permission of the District judge on 9-8-56. Having come to know of this, plaintiff No. 11 obtained a document on behalf of the Brahmin Nijjog for a portion of the very same plot from some members of the Choudhury family who had no power of disposal but could not get possession of the same. Therefore, they wanted to forcibly dispossess defendant No. 1 and take possession of the land. On the date of occurrence, while defendant No. 1 was rearranging his tea stall, members of the Brahmin Nijjog including plaintiffs formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of forcibly dispossessing defendant No. 1 from the tea stall, entered into it and tried to demolish the wall separating the tea stall and the nijjog office. When defendant No. 1 protested, he was pushed aside and his furniture and articles thrown away. In response to the alarm raised by him, police arrived there, seized crowbar and pickaxes, prevented further damage to the wall and other properties of defendant no. 1. Defendant No. 1 thereupon, went to the P. S. , lodged the F. I. R. on the basis of which police took up investigation and ultimately charge-sheeted some of the plaintiffs. The quantum of damage claimed is disputed and the high status and respectability claimed by the plaintiffs is denied.

( 4 ) ON a consideration o