H. R. KRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff's whose suit for damages for malicious prosecution has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. There is no dispute on the allegations of facts, the questions being, whether in the circumstances of this case, the defendant can be deemed to have started the prosecution; whether the infor-mation given by him was false or one without sufficient cause; and whether in the present case the background of old feud was at all material.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are the following. The defendant is a doctor and a neighbour of the plaintiffs who are father and son, and who used to do business in the sale of different commodities including kerosene oil. Sometime in 1946, when the Defence of Gwalior Rules (which were a copy of the Defence of India Rules) were in force, and kerosene oil was a controlled commodity, the defendant informed the police that the appellants had stored 20 tins of kerosene oil. The actual wording of the information contained either in a letter by the defendant or in the station diary entries of the police, has not been produced, though in view of what happened subsequently, the plaintiff-appellants must have

Click Here to Read the rest of this document