Malicious Prosecution—Damages--Suit for damages would be maintainable against the legal representatives as well because the cause of action survives to the legal representatives of the plaintiffs as well as qua the defendants.
Malicious Prosecution—Damages—Prosecution and the acquittal in strict legal sense are not the conditions required for maintaining a suit for malicious prosecution.

Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J.: - This is an appeal by the legal representatives of one Bant Singh, against whom the suit was originally filed by the respondents herein claiming damages for malicious prosecution. The suit was decreed and Rs.50,000/- each were awarded as damages for malicious prosecution in favour of the respondents. During the pendency of the suit itself, Bant Singh had expired and the present appellants had stepped in as his legal representatives by moving an application. The appeal filed by them was also dismissed. Hence, the present appeal is filed.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that one Harchand Singh brother of Bant Singh was joint owner of the land holding with Bant Singh and etc. However, he had filed a civil suit claiming title of the suit property in his favour. That civil suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27.01.1988, which are placed on record of the case as Ex:P-6 and P-7. Bant Singh challenged that judgment and decree. However, his suit was dismissed. He had filed an appeal before the lower appellate court. However, the appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.01.1994, which are placed on record as Ex:P-8 and P-9 in the present suit.

3. Aggrieved thereof, Bant Singh had filed RSA No. 1347 of 1994. However, his RSA No. 1347 of 1994 was also dismissed vide order dated 26.05.1994.

4. After the title of the suit property had become final in favour of Harchand Singh upto the high court the present respondents/plaintiffs purchased the suit property measuring 2 kanals 5 marlas comprised in specific khasra No. 76//16/2 and 8/1 vide sale deed dated 1.06.1995 from Harchand Singh. As per the claim of the plaintiffs since they were sold the land in dispute through specific khasra numbers, therefore, they were also given the possession and they were enjoying the suit property.

5. However, Bant Singh tried to interfere in the peaceful enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs/respondents herein. Therefore, they had filed a suit for injunction praying for restraining the said Bant Singh from interfering in their peaceful possession. The trial court in that suit granted interim injunction vide order dated 26.09.1995, which is placed as Ex:P-12 on the record of the present suit and restrained Bant Singh from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents. Ultimately, that suit was also decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.1998, which is placed as Ex:P-13 on the record of the present case.

6. However, before the above said suit was decreed but after the interim injunction was granted by the trial court restraining Bant Singh from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs/respondents, Bant Singh lodged an FIR No. 141 dated 21.10.1995 at Police Station Sahnewal under Sections 379, 447, 427, 148 and 149 IPC. Copy of this FIR is placed as Ex:R-3/D on the record of the present suit. In this FIR, the allegation was that the suit land was under joint ownership and therefore, Bant Singh also was in possession of the suit land. It was the allegation in the FIR that electric motor for water pump was installed on the suit property which was stolen by the plaintiffs by tress-passing into the property in the form of an unlawful assembly. In that FIR, respondent Ajit Pal Singh was arrested on 24.10.1995. Respondents Amarjit Singh and Harpreet Singh both had to obtain anticipatory bail. However, ultimately police filed cancellation report which is placed on record as Ex:16 in the present case saying that there has been no theft of the motor and that there has been no tress pass etc. since the plaintiffs were owner in possession of the suit property and there was an injunction in their favour.

7. After the cancellation report was filed by the police, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs claiming that Ajit Pal Singh had to undergo mental trauma, harassment and became victim of harassment and defamation because he